Revisiting the Olduvai Theory
Posted by Heading Out on March 6, 2006 - 2:54pm
The Olduvai Gorge Theory was laid out by Richard Duncan in 1989, after seeing that world energy per capita (WEPC) has been declining since 1979. Although others had seen this, Duncan felt that they missed the point that if it kept falling, modern civilization would collapse.
Duncan defined the Electrical Civilization as the way-of-life enabled by widespread and abundant electricity, and set its limits as the period where WEPC is above 30% of its peak, i.e. the period beyond 1930.
The Olduvai Theory assumes that after peaking, WEPC will decline at a rate that mirrors its growth. This brings the Electrical Civilization to an end after 100 years. Duncan defined the idea without using a model, but his concept has been built into other models. Of these, the Meadows team's World3 is probably the most famous, giving the Electrical Civilization a lifetime between 100 and 105 years in all three reference simulations, 1969, 1989, and 1999.
And thus the Olduvai Theory evolved to:
Electrical Civilization can be described by a single pulse waveform of duration X, as measured by average energy-use per person per year. It has a life-expectancy of less than one-hundred (100) years.
1. The Olduvai Slope - a period of slow decline;
2. The Olduvai Slide - a period triggered by Peak Oil when decline would accelerate;
3. The Olduvai Cliff - the collapse of Electrical Civilization with overwhelming decline of energy per capita.
The Olduvai Theory Pulse.
Electric Civilization endures for no more than 100 years, between 1930 and 2030.
You can get a better insight of the Olduvai Gorge Theory in these papers available at Jay Hanson's dieoff.org site:
The World Petroleum Life-Cycle
The Peak Of World Oil Production And The Road to The Olduvai Gorge
In the last of these Duncan included this graph:
Oil production per Capita.
A strong link between oil and population is clear from 1983 on.
When I first saw this graph, my chin fell so hard that I had to dig to find it, and I think I've still yet to fully understand what it means. It was like finding the missing link of Mankind (in this case Oil-Mankind). Since 1983 Oil Production per Capita has been flat. This has to mean one of two things:
* Population Growth drives Oil Production, or;
* Oil Production drives Population Growth.
I'm more inclined to the first assertion; though claims that, since the mid-eighties, production has been below capacity make sense, otherwise OPEC wouldn't have been able to control prices.
Re-assessing the Olduvai Theory
The last projection I have, by Duncan, is from 2000, with data to 1999. So I thought I'd see if we were already in the Olduvai Slide. I used BP's Statistical Review, Duncan's source, and the medium projections up to 2050 published by United Nations' World Population Prospects.
I got this:
World energy per capita 1965-2005.
After a local peak in 1979, energy/capita went again above 12 boe in 2004 and 2005. Source data: UN for population, BP for energy; 2005 calculated with IEA data.
So much for the Olduvai Slide. In 2004 and 2005 World Energy per Capita was above 1979, and rising. If we are on the road to Olduvai, we are moving backwards. So, what's wrong? Were did Duncan fail and what's going on?
BP's spreadsheet gives numbers for the different fuel types, so let's look at them.
Oil per capita 1965-2005.
Since the last Oil Shock things have been pretty calm, with a plateau since 1983. We can identify 3 periods in this graph, each separated by an Oil Shock:
1. Exponential growth till 1973;
2. Bumpy plateau from 1973 to 1979 (5,0 - 5.5 bbl/cap.);
3. Mind-blowing smooth plateau from 1983 (4.3 - 4.5 bbl/cap.).
These periods explain the difficulty in correctly modeling oil production history. After an Oil Shock we reset our lives to a new level of Oil per Capita, which reshapes the curve and, in my view, completely validates depletion models based solely on post-1983 data.
In the last couple of years there's a slight rise above the plateau, which explains part of that new Olduvai Peak. As for the future of Oil, I guess we all have an idea of what it will be.
Gas per capita 1965-2005.
There has been a steady linear growth, doubling production per capita in 40 years. Gas isn't itself responsible for the rebound in energy/capita, but its growth has been steady.
But for all these sources one has to ask what'll happen after Peak Oil. I don't know, but even if Peak Oil doesn't affect Gas production Gas will peak before the middle of the XXI century.
Coal per capita 1965-2005.
Found it! Coal production was on a carrousel `til the nineties, when it started a sharp decline, then all of a sudden it sharply rebounded after 2000. This has most likely been due to the emerging economies of Asia. Good old Coal is always there for us. Remember Henry Grope's address at the ASPO-USA Denver conference? Well, what he said is happening already.
Gas started replacing Coal when the first declines occurred in the late sixties. This is important because Gas is more efficient than Coal, so we're using less primary energy and getting the more final energy. This is what probably baffled Duncan into predicting an early slide.
The future of Coal is uncertain, huge reserves are still there, but mining is hard. There's a unique characteristic about Coal, you can't send it through pipelines. Coal has to be transported in Oil-run vehicles. After Peak Oil its price will surely rise, and I doubt its production will continue to grow at this rate. Coal's dependence on Oil might also be responsible for the latest small surge in Oil/capita.
(Ed note:- coal can and is transported in pipelines).
Hydro-energy per capita 1965-2005.
After a strong growth up to the nineties, Hydro-power per capita is having trouble staying at a high level and follows a quadratic, rending down since 2000. Hydro-electric power generation is still growing worldwide, but it's losing its impact on our daily energy needs. From what I've learned this drop will continue. Dams are viewed mostly as strategic reserves, and lakes are kept full for use in emergencies. Moreover, countries face problems in building dams without damaging the environment. There's another increasingly important function for dams that limits their use, hydrologic management. We are fighting the northward spread of the Sahara, and Alqueva, the dam with the largest artificial lake in Europe, has a major role of keeping Guadiana flowing, otherwise it would dry-up during the Summer.
Nuclear power per capita 1965-2005.
This is a beautiful creaming curve, which though stable in the last decade, has a big question mark over the future. Since 1990 Nuclear power seems to be also driven by population growth, with a residual upward trend. Those aware of Peak Oil have learnt to. at least. respect Nuclear as one of our true answers to the challenges ahead. Lately the alarm has been sounded that we may soon face a Uranium shortage. Demand for Uranium is 40% above supply, and worse, it seems that the amount of Uranium mined every year is about half that consumed.
We are now reaching a time when a large number of reactors will be decommissioned due to aging, and replacements aren't on the way (at least in Europe). The future of Nuclear is uncertain, but further growth in Nuclear-power/capita is very unlikely, in fact the opposite is more likely.
World energy per capita by source 1965-2005. (Over this period Oil has been dominant).
Looking into the Future
This is the part when one risks his reputation, but what the heck.
In order to understand if the Olduvai Theory is still valid we'll have to look into the Future. Let's first just look at Oil and then to the total Energy per capita scenario.
To project future Oil Production we'll use the bounds given by the method developed by Khebab and Stuart, that resulted in these Extrapolations (Low, Medium and High). Using population projections to 2050 we get this:
Projected Oil per capita up to 2050.
Using the error bounds set by Stuart, it is clear that the plateau of Oil per capita is set to end, replaced by a sharp decline, which is pretty scary. Stuart has been showing us how Peak Oil is a slow squeeze; the same is true for Oil/Capita. But from these projections we see that this slow squeeze is over, we're bound for a serious decline in oil production per inhabitant of this planet. Just take a look at peak moments and values:
And to take an peek at the decline:
Five years from now a fall of 10 % is more than likely, in fifteen years 20 % less is to be expected, in 2050 all models are below 35% of 2005 oil/capita figures.
Remember the Hirsch Report? Twenty years from now the gap given by the medium logistic is 1.664 bbl/cap, which with a projected population of 7.9 billion gives a production deficit of 13 Gigabarrels (Gb) over the year.
There's another point to be stressed: in 2005 world oil production rose above 30 Gb/year, there's no reasonable logistic model that gives such a number. For instance Stuart's High Logistic has a peak of 28.9 Gb, with a generous URR of 2500 Gb. We're now on a local spike above the mathematical curve, one day we'll have to pay for this, diving below that curve. We might not see an Olduvai Cliff for Energy but one for Oil is almost guaranteed.
Projecting Future Energy per Capita
Here we have a problem; projecting future oil production is a well understood process, but not for other energy sources. Still I'd like to know how energy evolves into the future. Two models can be suggested:
* The world is perfect: in spite of Peak Oil other energy sources continue to grow, maintaining the same values per capita;
* The world is not so perfect: Peak Oil limits our ability to further increase production of other energy sources, but the levels of today can be maintained.
Since only Hydro-electric power is a renewable energy none of these scenarios is realistic. When formulating the Olduvai Theory, Duncan implicitly assumed that a decline in oil production would imply a decline in production from other energy sources. So I checked the relation between the two, plotting the stable period of 1983 to the present:
Oil vs Other Energy 1983-2004.
This turned out to be better than I thought. There's a clear link between oil and other energy sources. But don't think we've got it, this might just mean that the other sources are also population driven.
We've now got 3 models for future production from Non-Oil energy sources:
1. Constant production per capita at 2004 values (increasing every year);
2. Constant production over time at 2004 values (every year the same);
3. Oil-driven production (decreasing every year).
To each of these I added the medium Oil/capita model we've seen before, obtaining this:
Projected Energy per capita up to 2050.
Three very different outcomes. In 2050 these models project a fall to 72.6 %, 53.9% or 21.5% of 2005 values. For the friendliest model to work, energy production from sources other than Oil will have to be 71.1 Gboe; that's a 42% increase over today's 50,5 Gboe. And we are talking mainly of finite resources.
The constant production scenario is more reasonable, but both Gas and Nuclear will most certainly start falling before 2050. It's assumed that Coal will replace these losses, given the difficulties in increasing output from Hydro-electric plants.
In the last and ugliest scenario, Olduvai unfolds in the next 40 years.
Reformulating the Olduvai Gorge Theory
I'll now allow myself the liberty and eccentricity of reformulating the Olduvai Theory. After all, without doing this, it wouldn't be fun.
The Olduvai Theory sets the Electrical Civilization to the time frame where Energy per Capita is above 30% of its all time peak. In 2005 that was 12.522 boe/capita and we know this:
* We're at a plateau in Oil production, above any value predicted by any reasonable logistic model;
* Population is still increasing steadily;
* Peak Oil will highly likely arrive in the next 5 years (if it hasn't yet).
So we can assume that 2005 is very likely to be a peak year in Energy/Capita. Thirty percent of 12.522 is about 3.756, a value first crossed in 1950. In the Oil-driven world scenario this value is crossed again in 2044. I guess we can now reformulate the Olduvai Theory:
Electrical Civilization can be described by a single pulse waveform of duration X, as measured by average energy-use per person per year.If it turns out that Oil drives the production of energy from other sources, the life-expectancy of Electrical Civilization is less than one-hundred years: i.e., X < 100.
In case Oil isn't the driving force behind production from other energy sources, the life-expectancy of Electrical Civilization is greater than or equal to one-hundred years: i.e., X >= 100. In such case X will be limited by a yet to be assessed upper bound, set by the decline of other-than-oil finite energy sources: i.e., X < U.
Homework: find a value for U.
Conclusions
The Olduvai Theory shows us something very simple, without renewable energy sources our modern way of life will end some time in the future. I'm an optimist and I believe we can drive away from the road to Olduvai. We can do it by controlling population or by using other forms of energy like Solar and Wind. Of course Oil will be hard to replace, but maybe cellulosic ethanol or something like it can help us in the long run.
Duncan introduced a very important concept, energy per capita, a measure of our Civilization. It's something that let us get a better understanding of the place Energy has in our life, and how can it affect our Future.
From the Olduvai Theory we learned that modeling resource depletion is also modeling population, and that there is a strong link between the two.
Acknowledgements
I'd like to thank TOD editors for letting me share these thoughts with this fantastic community.
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.
My back of the envelope definition of continous function as a civilization is little knowledge and culture lost, new knowledge and culture found even if the pace is slower and essential services continued like medicine production, universities, GPS and Internet.
Further is industrial/electrical civilization such an overwhelmingly powerfull toolbox that I find it likely that it will continue to affect 90+ % of the world population as long as a small percentage keeps it running. At the lowest and poorest continuing level it will be those electgrically civilized people who provide with the magical communication gadgets, medicines and weapons that every self respecting and respected local leader have...
I have myself for some sentimental reason continued industrial/electrical culture as the no 1 priority. What is the meaning with human existance if we do not do anything remarkable? If no one do anything remarkable?
I think loving people acting like humans, singing songs, and telling stories around the campfire will be much more "remarkable" than this plastic and electricity "society."
"A supporter for harsh reduction of Earths population and a fanatical opponent of industrialized society."
You mean as an enemy? I would rather be fanatical about preserving industrialized society and propagating a culture rich in sub cultures that at least tolerates and cross pollinates each other. All the fachistical visions I have read about sound extremely boring, what is fun with a life where you are surrounded by xerox copies of yourself? Do master race people lack imagination?
The problem as I see it is that maybe 90% of the population is fed with modern agriculture. The real question is if modern agriculture is sustainable. For this question I think the problems will come from soil erosion, insufficient fresh water , loss of biodiversity etc.; energy shortages will make situation a little bit worse but will not be crucial IMO.
There are plenty of people just in Sweden to maintain civilization at 1950 levels of civilization or better. I suggest adding in Denmark for its pastries, ham, and cherry liqueur, plus Norway is a good source for herring and fighting men. Oh yes, keep Finland in the group, because it is good at fighting Russians in the winter.
Iceland is valuable as a source of beautiful women and salmon--other fish too.
Might be a good idea to invest in some coast guard boats and navies--oh, and especially, mine fields.
It is very interesting how individuals cling to algae, wind energy, sea wave motion, cow dung, aboitic methane or whatever fad is popular to help keep their delusional idea that this lifestyle can and will continue. Well, it all ends when the phat oil lady sinks.
I wonder do these folks ever think about the infrastructure and resources all these wonderful technologies will devour? Just look at the interstate-highway system. Maybe if we had one tenth of the roads....maybe...and I mean maybe...could we keep them functioning for 50 years. Does anyone realize the resources used up just for that purpose...of course not. We sit on our computers punching neat logarithms on the screen (saying from Kunstler), having no clue of the real world.
It might be more advantageous to get a few books on gardening, orcharding, or one on Living on less, than wind energy or algae for dummys.
Heading out...I just wanted to say....great job.
We are going to be hard-pressed to maintain our current infrastructure, let alone build all new, as would be required for hydrogen, coal gasification, nuclear, etc.
As I drive past endless tracts of suburbia all roofed with asphalt shingles, I wonder about that little detail as a weak link among many weak links in our chain of infrastructure. Once a roof starts leaking, it is a quick trip to decay of the building. When 100 million roofs made to last 15 years all start to break down and leak just at a time when the building trades have run out of gas and material to repair them, those miles and miles of homes are all going to start to implode in slow-mo.
-Matt, former residential carpenter turned high school teacher, DC burbs
Comparing highways with renewable energy is not the smartest thing to do. Renewables can and will help just because they are renewable.
As for highways you're prabably right, my post shows how hard the gap will be to fill. Even with a steady increase in production from other energy sources the comsumption rates of today aren't likelly to prevail for long.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, the math is on your side, I just hope for a better future.
Renewables and reparing and replacing current infrasture will be in competition for ever depleting resources at ever increasing costs. I am an optomist...but being pragmatic today might save more skins.
More to the point, global energy/capita matters very little. The places where population is growing rapidly are not the places where technological society is maintained. (Some people are bound to notice this and suggest "removing" populations which give rise to nuisances like terrorist movements...)
The major issue, though, is that there are some huge energy supplies which are barely tapped at the present and don't show up on the big curves, but which are growing exponentially at a much greater rate than population. US wind production was up over 30% last year, dwarfing even the most fecund country's population growth. Solar is increasing at a somewhat slower pace. Even if we can't accelerate those trends, all we have to do is hang on until they catch up to our needs. Sure, these things are small now; so was per-capita transistor production in 1965. Moore's Law showed how useless that frozen snapshot was as a hint of the future.
The world's 72 TW of wind potential could supply 8 kW/capita to a population of 9 billion; it's clear that this alone is sufficient to stay well above 30% of the peak so long as population does not continue to increase.
Wind turbines and PV (and algae) will produce as long as the sun shines, so we're good for at least the next billion years. I'd like to see a comparison of solar and wind energy production per capita as a reality check.
Hey, everyone!!! Don't worry about the planet. 'Cause we don't need no stinking planet. Moore's law will SAVE us!!!
Question. How much energy do all the millions of servers and computers use now compared to twenty years ago?
Adhering to the simple tenets of physics is the hardest thing for technophiles. They want to be able to clap and clap and see Tinkerbell get all better.
The tech magic is going kids. Don't hang your hat on it.
"Adhering to the simple tenets of physics is the hardest thing for technophiles. They want to be able to clap and clap and see Tinkerbell get all better."
And the flexibility and ingenuity of the human race is the hardest thing for the Apocalypticons to accept. They're so tied to their (often implicit) assumptions about critical details remaining constant that they want to clap and clap as they moralize over Tinkerbell dying an agonizing death.
No, not now, not ever.
Anybody pretending otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
The odds are extremely high that the population of the human race will be limited in one of two ways: We explicitly do it, or we're forcibly constrained by resources. The first is vastly preferable, but it will be hell to try to make happen.
Talk about living in a fantasy world...
Duncan is making assumptions based on a certain amount of knowledge. Just because he may be off a few years or a decade...what's the difference if one has children and grandchildren. Do you think Duncan is totally wrong...or do you have a problem with his exact time scale?
I think people need to start thinking about what one is going to do with their family(s) in the future. We can debate exacts all day long. But when things start getting really rough....a large percentage of people will be stuck with few options. At least now...their is time to get ones house (or small farm) in order.
Goodluck
He said...if we cannot learn how to live self-sustaining on this earth..we can never graduate to space. We cannot go to space like we colonized and destroyed the rest of the planet. Does not work that way. We can't go to space because we have not learned how to live here correctly. Of course...people are allowed in this country to believe in their delusions...
But we seem to have done some good cataloging of very large near-earth-objects that could produce global destruction, and we appear to have some time.
Perhaps we can find a way to colonize space someday, but I very much agree with the previous posters that it is not possible soon due to energy constraints of the near future, nor would it be desirable for us to spread out into space as an unsustainable, all-consuming force. That is evil.
Let's be good and human and relearn our values and live sustainably, and maybe we'll someday deserve to save ourselves from the space rock.
But the heat death of the universe will still get us. So it goes.
Unsustainable use of resources shields against catastrophic meteors? the quality of thinking in this forum never ceases to amaze.
Who can say?
Perhaps either is possible.
Regardless, I think the only rational thing to do now is to assume that the latter is possible and act on that basis. The alternative is... ?
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
Look at Richard Duncan PhD's graph. That's a naked guy with a bow and arrow, not a fedora and a Studebaker.
But we're talking about Duncan here, not Deffeyes. The guy with the bow and arrow is at 3000 AD, not 2026.
But no electricity is far from the Stone Age.
I would like to push the term "Human Age" for when the electricity is gone.
I think it is difficult for us to know exactly what the "original" stone age was like to live in. It is also possible that some people who can't understand cooperation will live almost that pitifully soon too.
However, my tribe will be enjoying our humanity in a blossoming of art, love, music, dance, peace, and plenty as soon as this dehumanizing oil is on the down slope.
Nothing is simple.
After that everything is complicated.
Even boiling an egg is complicated because you are cross-polymerizing complex organic compounds --and you are converting fossil fuels into GreenHouse Gases (GHGs); --and you are probably depleting finite oil, gas or coal.
Simplicity lives in the simple mind. Do we want to keep it that way?
And yes, I'm painfully aware of what a freak show US policy has become in this area. It won't stay that way; pendulums swing in both directions and ours is looking more and more like it's reached the extent of its swing to the right.
Honestly, if I were as pessimistic as some of the people I see commenting online about energy (not a comment about you, Reed), I'd put a bullet in my head. But I'm relatively optimistic and growing slightly more optimistic as I continue to study energy (and I've been at it, in one form or another, since the 1973 embargo).
As I've said many times online, peak oil and peak natural gas will be extremely difficult challenges. They will cause considerable human suffering and even deaths, and they will wipe out some entire industries and decimate others, leading to huge economic dislocations. But a crash of civilization? The Olduvai scenario? Not a chance.
It could go the other way. Exxon-Mobil is getting a lot of very bad press already, which is encouraging.
If there's some fly in that ointment, perhaps you can point it out. Maybe you can come up with an even better idea, and test it in your back yard.
Reference please.
Exactly. The argument of Olduvai is about Electrical Civilization. PV and Wind are based on still not renewable items like copper, iron, silicon. But copper, iron and the silicon are not consumed like fossil fuels or uranium, so the materials that interupt a magnetic field to produce current or use a photon to move an electron CAN have energy re-imputted into it and reused.
The biggest stumbling block will be the lack of electrical infrastucture to move the electrons from havest point to the end users. Sprawled cities lime Minneapolis could use PV on the land and be able to cover in large part residental users, but cities like New York would need large imports of renewable power to keep it operational.
'Room temprature' superconductors, made of a lower cost than copper would make a 72TW/9 billion grand statement possible. But with copper and other items 'restricted' and the losses in transmition of electrical power over that copper....72TW/9 billion is an unrealistic pipe dream.
There will still be haves and have nots.
algae) will produce as long as the sun shines,
Algae is a non starter, unless the water and food sources are close to where you are growing the algae. Most places with algae food (sewage) and water already have the land needed for algae growing systems already occupied. Open land for a place for algae to capture photons requiers moving the food to the algae...a non-trivial energy investment. Dumping herbicide in the sewage waste stream would upset most algae growing efforts. (people for the ethical treatment of algae strike again in their round-up terror strike)
At least with wind/PV you can export the product via a wire, and the raw material for processing doesn't have a 'cost'.
Let's get that carbon stream out of the atmosphere, into the buckysphere.
==AC
If you can show me how I'm wrong, I'll be happy to change my tune. But that would mean using numbers.
If you're dreaming of an apocalypse and can't take the Left Behind books seriously, perhaps another website like dieoff.org would be more to your taste than TOD.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/OlduvaiTheorySocialContract.pdf
Haven't had a chance to read it yet. It's a PDF I keep forgetting to print out to read.
src: Graphoilogy
Interesting that the GDP line is consistently above the blue oil line after the oil shocks. Does that mark some economic resilience / efficiency gains?
I am sure that is just the effects of switching from oil to natural gas, which reduces oil consumption without GDP, and mostly, the outsourcing of manufacturing. The GDP indicates the value of the product, without accounting for the energy cost (which is switched to another country).
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/chp4pdf/fig4_3.pdf
That's a bit of a different sort of graph than Khebab, and shows how different countries have trended (mostly downward in developed countries and upward in developing countries over the last 20 years.)
(Olduvai ... I don't know, that's nested too many projections deep for me.)
(I did the rough search and found no "japan" in the Ayres paper.)
If so, let's look at all manufacturing and industry from a 'gestalt' rather than randomly applying political borders to establish energy usage per capita in Japan or the US.
Like the work of Ayres suggests the service sector allows you to grow the economy at the expense of less exergy.
Energy/GDP elasticity in Japan was
1965-73 1.2
1973-80 0.13
1980-90 0.49
1990-95 1.86
1995-01 -- (It should be '0.0')
Please note that GDP increased in 1979-1982 although Energy consumption decreased. During the deflatinary period in the 90's, GDP increased at a low rate without an increase in energy consumption. I think that a bad performance of elasticity ratio in 1990-95 was the result of excess of the bubble economy in the 80's.
If you want to understand "Peak" you better understand Tertzakian.
I'll only be happy when as many people here have read the masked-man-from-Alberta's book as have read "Twilight." If "Twilight" was too technical for you, try "Thousand."
The only difference is that Tertzakian is clearly younger and smarter. Think Schumacher vs. Andretti. It's not that wisdom doesn't count. It's just that these days, you have to be fast, agressive, and smart as a whip.
It is about a break point. I always talk about framing. This is re-framing. A peak, a plateau, a break. I like Tertzakian's frame the best. So far. It will be reframed. That's ok.
Anyway, I put a hold on it. The online catalog idea does have some advantages over how it was done in the old days.
Also, B & N is a great place to meet hot young literate women. Poetry section is good.
Alternatively, you could take notes on your laptop.
I've gotten very good condition used books from half.com, but haven't done that in a few years.
Olduvai I don't know .. room for short term improvement.
Implications of Higher Oil Prices for Future Economic Growth
Lets try it again:
Implications of Higher Oil Prices for Future Economic Growth
Because of Overshoot, there are an infinite number of detritovore inflection points whereby violence is more efficient at securing energy [in all its forms] than honest daily biosolar labor. Obviously, a cursory examination of the news shows this happening worldwide already: Iraqi war to brutal conflict across Africa. The continuing elite wealth consolidation in the first world countries is just another example of stocking up on power to eventually be unleased as a hammer blow across our Homeland in a myriad of methods.
Decreasing net energy inevitably compresses the long term delusions of our Energy Fiesta into desperate short-term needs. Consider the stress and gas-station line fighting of the '70s energy crunch as a mild example of what lies ahead unless huge Powerdown programs are started immediately. In short, the potential harvest from using the exosomatic reach of a detritus bullet is magnitudes greater than the harvest from a biosolar wielded garden hoe.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Sure I'd like to be one of the techno optimists, but reality has to be acknowledged by us adults at some point. I like my tech stuff. But it will not be around in another fifty years or even less. The basic question is not how can we keep our cool stuff. The basic question is how can we come to accept that that cool stuff is killing the planet and we would be just as happy without it -- perhaps (in my opinion almost certainly) happier without it.
Sure there will be vast dislocations, inflection points, and all manner of opportunity to kill each other over the scraps of technological man, but then, when the dust settles, we will have an opportunity to get back in tune with the planet that evolved us.
For those of you want to find the tech fix, please remember that tech is what got us here in the first place. The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing something that does not work. Let's hope we are not a world of loonies.
At least post-industrial man gets a microphone.
FUNNY....although the chart you reference is the one NOT to show to any friends you are trying to get interested in taking the oil depletion issue seriously, it is a graphic representation of the "stone age by 2025" type remarks now being thrown around by Deffeyes...it makes people outside the "circle" roll in the floor laughing.:-O hahaha...
This is now the problem. The "movement" has now taken on such strident tones of complete defeatism and catastrophic nihilism it is moving further and further from the mainstream. They could be right of course, and we all could collapse back to life as hunter gatherers circ. 3000BC, and all because we ran short of liquid fuel, but it's too great a jump for even the most wild imaginations to cope with....and given the new strain "inevitablility", i.e., nothing can be done, it won't matter anyway, it's a forgone conclusion.
I notice the little drawing shows the guy with a bow....see, we did salvage technology after all! :-O heee, heee, heee
Prices aren't even close to high. When US gasoline tops $4/gallon (or even $5) and stays there permanently, then I'd say prices are high.
And as for us not doing anything yet, tell that to the people within Ford and GM who are trying to sell pickup trucks and SUV's. They're taking it in the teeth now, and it will only get worse.
There's a very significant time lag in response to energy prices. First, there's infrastructure changes that have to take place for some types of conservation, and those are capital expenditures that don't happen overnight. Second, there's a market psychology component--people have to believe that the current prices aren't just a short-term blip before they'll commit to a long-term and possibly expensive change. But even with these built-in buffers, the change is already happening with cars in the US.
We haven't turned on a dime, by any means, but the signs are there that the market is responding.
Also with global warming, a jungle planet will eventually form, resulting in us returning to the trees - from whence we came in the first place. (as shown by the bipedal ape lookalike) Way to the right, you could show an ape lookalike again. (my whimsical "automotive ape theory")
At the top, you could show that definitive symbol of the present time: 9/11. Lending itself to conspiracy theories, 9/11 served as an excuse to invade Iraq to try to get the last largely untapped patches of conventional oil. Underlying all the geopolitical insanity is the stealthy, insidious effects of the oil peak. Unless you know about it, current events make little to no sense.
The computer industry won't need to worry about Y3K! ;-)
But that's because we fixed that bug already, not exactly because there won't be computers in Y3K.
Maybe we can work on a patch to the Electrical Civilization, and put here at TOD to free download.
Patch your life now! Or Olduvai will make it fault (core dumped).
I wonder if they'll wheel me out to work on those old UNIX systems ...
Hard to say - it could be sloping down. Not because we are doing anything good, but because we have outsourced the industrial base to 3rd world countries.
src: GraphOilogy
No, it's quite new, since end of January. I'm planning one or two posts a week for now, I'm also trying to convince some good friends here in Quebec to help me.
You're probably right, for example the January drop in production was weather related. 2006 will be an important year to determine if Russia has reached a plateau.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html
US energy consumption peaked in 78-79 at 360 million btu/person, and was 340 in 2004. It has basically been in the same range since oil peaked in the early 70s.
2% increase from 1970 to 1990
1.6% increase from 1990 to 2004
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/03/energy_availabi.html
Best,
Matt
1970 334
1971 335
1972 347
1973 358
1974 347
1975 334
1976 349
1977 355
1978 360
1979 360
1980 346
1981 333
1982 316
1983 313
1984 325
1985 321
1986 320
1987 327
1988 339
1989 344
1990 340
1991 335
1992 335
1993 337
1994 339
1995 343
1996 350
1997 348
1998 345
1999 347
2000 352
2001 338
2002 340
2003 338
2004P 340
Since 1983 Oil Production per Capita has been flat. This has to mean one of two things:
* Population Growth drives Oil Production, or;
* Oil Production drives Population Growth.
My interpretation of the chart is much simpler: the 1983-1999 period is flat because increases in population offset increases in production.
Otherwise, of course population growth influences oil production; more demand has led to more exploration and production.
Likewise, higher oil production has supported population growth in multiple ways, i.e. by increasing agricultural yield, leading to better nutrition and higher survival rates.
The main reason for me to believe that Population is driving Oil Production is that fact that since the mid-80's we've been below capacity.
If the correlation between the two variables is so good, what else is efluencing Production Growth?
http://tinyurl.com/eq5qy
This is Duncan's peer-reviewed paper going to print in The Social Contract.
==AC
"The Social Contract" is published by John H. Tanton, a well-known racist and anti-immigration activist who has said that unless U.S. borders are sealed, America will be overrun by people "defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs."
The Southern Poverty Law Center on "The Social Contract":
Source
http://tinyurl.com/mdoqj
Don't be so easily seduced by the rhetoric...
==AC
Also, you still haven't said who the "peers" were.
==AC
Here is a picture of Virginia. She looks like a real meanie...
==AC
BTW
Of course I don't know who the peers were but I have sent an email to Duncan and I will let you know if he replies...
(Jus' kiddin'.)
Peak Oil takes no sides in politics. It'll come no matter what politics you defend.
Here's a nifty little photo:
That's Virginia Abernethy on the far left, and Wayne Lutton Ph.D. (Duncan's editor and "peer reviewer" at The Social Contract) second from right. Note the confederate flag prominently displayed in the foreground.
In a sense, this Olduvai argument is a little like saying that if the average personal car uses less and less gasoline per year, then we can extrapolate and say that eventually cars will not exist because they will all use zero gasoline and hence will not function. Clearly this is absurd. You can't fit a gaussian to every single freakin thing out there.
I don't know how anyone can read the Olduvai stuff without making precisely the argument you did--how in the world do you go from saying "X is true" (the peak in worldwide per capita energy consumption) to "therefore it means that Y must be true" (we're headed for a crash), with no serious consideration given to increases in efficiency or other possible explanations?
This reminds me of the analysis that pops up from time to time about silver. It shows in excruciating detail all the places we get silver--mines in various countries. It also shows where we use silver--photography, electronics, jewelry, dental work, etc. The conclusion is obvious: We're using silver faster than we're mining it and above-ground stores will soon be depleted, so You Should Invest In Silver Right Now! The problem is that the analysis always, somehow, forgets to include recycling, which turns the conclusion on its head. I've seen this thing in one form or another numerous times since the early 1980's, and I'm sure it's much older than that.
You can't recycle Gas.
You can't recycle Coal.
As for efficiency remember the Jevons Paradox.
As for profanity, you may use it at will it just makes my point stronger.
As far as per capita usage, the info I have seen shows that we use about 20 times as much per capita as we did in 1850. I would call that a substantial increase.
At least in America, there has been no sign that we want to reduce our per capita energy usage. The $64,000 question is, what happens when we are forced to reduce our per capita usage?
~Ackerman
"Other factors remaining constant, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased"
~White's law {More Racist Drivel?? ;-}
I believe his theory rest upon the premise laid down above. If you can successfully disprove the premise, then you can disprove the Olduvai Theory. When our ability to increase the efficiency of energy use per capita [e] thorough "technology" is exhausted and [e] is forced to permanently decline so shall "cultural evolution" go into decline. In a culture as complex as our modern civilization which has already crossed the point of diminishing returns to increasing complexity, combined with the despicable state of the human condition, all but guarantees a catastrophic social collapse.
"To circumvent costliness in problem solving it is often suggested that we use resources more intelligently and efficiently. Timothy Allen and Thomas Hoekstra, for example, have suggested that in managing ecosystems for sustainability, managers should identify what is missing from natural regulatory process and provide only that. The ecosystem will do the rest. Let the ecosystem (i.e., solar energy) subsidize the management effort rather than the other way around (Allen and Hoekstra 1992). It is an intelligent suggestion. At the same time, to implement it would require much knowledge that we do not now possess. That means we need research that is complex and costly, and requires fossil-fuel subsidies. Lowering the costs of complexity in one sphere causes them to rise in another.
Agricultural pest control illustrates this dilemma. As the spraying of pesticides exacted higher costs and yielded fewer benefits, integrated pest management was developed. This system relies on biological knowledge to reduce the need for chemicals, and employs monitoring of pest populations, use of biological controls, judicious application of chemicals, and careful selection of crop types and planting dates (Norgaard 1994). It is an approach that requires both esoteric research by scientists and careful monitoring by farmers. Integrated pest management violates the principle of complexity aversion, which may partly explain why it is not more widely used.
Such issues help to clarify what constitutes a sustainable society. The fact that problem-solving systems seem to evolve to greater complexity, higher costs, and diminishing returns has significant implications for sustainability. In time, systems that develop in this way are either cut off from further finances, fail to solve problems, collapse, or come to require large energy subsidies. This has been the pattern historically in such cases as the Roman Empire, the Lowland Classic Maya, Chacoan Society of the American Southwest, warfare in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and some aspects of contemporary problem solving (that is, in every case that I have investigated in detail) (Tainter 1988, 1992, 1994b, 1995a). These historical patterns suggest that one of the characteristics of a sustainable society will be that it has a sustainable system of problem solving-one with increasing or stable returns, or diminishing returns that can be financed with energy subsidies of assured supply, cost, and quality.
Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be. If our efforts to understand and resolve such matters as global change involve increasing political, technological, economic, and scientific complexity, as it seems they will, then the availability of energy per capita will be a constraining factor. To increase complexity on the basis of static or declining energy supplies would require lowering the standard of living throughout the world. In the absence of a clear crisis very few people would support this. To maintain political support for our current and future investments in complexity thus requires an increase in the effective per capita supply of energy-either by increasing the physical availability of energy, or by technical, political, or economic innovations that lower the energy cost of our standard of living. Of course, to discover such innovations requires energy, which underscores the constraints in the energy-complexity relation.
One often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about through the "crash" that many fear-a genuine collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology."
~ Joseph A. Tainter, http://tinyurl.com/p9kzw
If we truly entered the phase of peak oil where are we going to find the fossil-fuel subsidies to increase our complexity to solve the problem of declining [e]?
Instead of "rational thought" our genes will bypass our cortex, which they have been doing with such success all along, and our species will fall prey to our "Shining Excalibur". The realpolitik solutions that are required to solve this essentially unsolvable problem will be abandoned for our species' religious furor. Our Excalibur, our mystical beliefs, will trump science and "rational thought" and ensure our species destroys itself in a mighty clash of civilizations...
==AC
"Human beings never think for themselves; they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told--and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behavior, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion."
~Michael Crichton, "The Lost World"
The graph shows an increase not a decrease.
An Olympic athlete can produce 350 Wh during 8 hours at most in the same day. Compare that with your energy bills. Oh yes heavy horses, do the math and then talk again with me.
Yes it is absurd. It just means you don't understand what the Olduvai Theory is.
I've used no Gaussian, just the Logistics extrapolated by Stuart and Khebab.
I would advise you to explore the Jevons Paradox, it may answer some of your questions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060306/hl_afp/zimbabwehealthcholera
or http://tinyurl.com/jpauk
Perhaps an 'Outhouse Theory' needs development. I find it amazing that Zimbabwe does not go to a Humanure System--perhaps just more Denial?
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
World energy per capita 1965-2005
Oil per capita 1965-2005
Gas per capita 1965-2005
Coal per capita 1965-2005
Hydro-energy per capita 1965-2005
Nuclear power per capita 1965-2005
World energy per capita by source 1965-2005
Projected Oil per capita up to 2050
Oil vs Other Energy 1983-2004
Projected Energy per capita up to 2050
I think there is no one driving force here but three: population growth, economic growth and the everlasting migration to the city, a driving force that the complete peakoil community has been neglecting far too often. While all three are intertwined they are not the same.
http://www.eh.gov.hu/gcpdocs/200308/kiadvany/angol/2001/03_Macroeco.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Budapest_Population_graph.PNG
A few remarks:
# "Coal has to be transported in Oil-run vehicles"
Disagree with this one. How about coal-run vehicles (by rail)?
# "Those aware of Peak Oil have learnt to. at least. respect Nuclear as one of our true answers to the challenges ahead" Glad you note the future of nuclear is uncertain. You mention this with a shortage in uranium in mind. However IMO, more important, nuclear (like wind and solar) is utterly depending on an underlying fossil fuel-based infrastructure.
# As soon as there is anyone who can convince me that nuclear energy is not depending on a fossil fuel based infrastructure I will change my mind. Until then, I'm opposing it.
# you can line me up with the more pessimistic crowd here at TOD; you've shown just a little later date for TEOTWAWKI then Duncan has. Gives me more time to get my children educated and prepared. Please note that being a geographer I'm very much convinced there will be human civilisation for as long as I can imagine and I'm planning for my kids to be part of that. I think the die-off is inevitable (sooner or later) but extincion of the human race is unlikely (at least not until the sun burns down). Humans have proved to be very adaptive to sudden changes in circumstances and to any event I can think of there will always be survivors.
# I do not mean to be disrespectfull to the people here who come up with technological solutions: Energy is not the same as Technology. To give an example Engineer Poet, on Mon Mar 06 at 2:41 PM EST, states "The world's 72 TW of wind potential could supply 8 kW/capita to a population of 9 billion; it's clear that this alone is sufficient to stay well above 30% of the peak so long as population does not continue to increase. Wind turbines and PV (and algae) will produce as long as the sun shines, so we're good for at least the next billion years" . Sure, but this, again, assumes the underlying fossilfuel based infrastructure is there. I do belief nuclear, wind and solar can provide for a few usefull basics. Then again, someone please convince me you can mine & process the raw materials for solar panels, windpower generators and nuclear power plants without fossil fuels (not to mention maintaining and replacing these, as well as maintaining the grid itself). I am sure the engineers are well aware of the versatility of oil vs. the versatility of electricity.
# Too long this post maybe but, if not for abrupt climate change, than for PO&G you can pretty much kiss electrical/industrial civilisation goodbye
If you oppose everything that depends on an infrastructure that depends on or uses fossil fuels you will oppose everything exept farming with pices of braches as tools.
How much longer do the fossil fuels last when complemented with another technology or more efficient use?
How expensive can the fossil fuels get while the other technology is economical?
Do you need so little and can accept such a high price that biofuels are enough?
My guess is that electricity is so valuble that any fossil input in a nuclear energy infrastructure can be provided with biofuels.
I only oppose nuclear because I'm a bit worried these may going to rot away one day and ruin the world for my grand-grand-children. (also constructing a nuclear power plant costs 5 to 10 billion US $ at this moment, and takes at least 5 years. Costs will probably exceed the present estimates during construction. Especially for the energy-hunger USA it will be very hard to get nukepower on scale with present deficits)
I highly favor any other alternative.
On the other hand, if we try to harvest the mentioned windpower potential for the entire planet we also have to do some big-time looting.
I do imagine agriculture civilisation to flourish(opposed to hunter/gatherer). However there is renewable fuel called wood on which such a civilisation can thrive. This can provide for a whole lot more then just farming with pices of braches. You Swedes know all about wood and will probably do well. As far as I know Sweden is also the only country in the world were forests are expanding.
"How much longer do the fossil fuels last when complemented with another technology or more efficient use?"
Magnus please, this implies FF and technology is the same. You know it is not. As a matter of fact, there is only technology because there is energy.
Anyway, I don't have the answer.
Your guess may be right
Of greater concern to me is the relentless pressure of population growth on everything, from ecosystems to social systems. If we can't control population, then somewhere we will cross a boundary and trigger dieoff. Oil, water, food, ecosystems... we have to scale back as a species.
1. Steam/coal-fired locomotives hauled coal for seventy years; they could do so again.
2. Railroads could be electrified with coal or nuclear-powered generators.
3. Electricity could be generated at or near coal mines and then transported long distances, as the Russians do.
4. Nuclear (or sail) powered ships can transport coal. Sail powered colliers used to be a major industry and could become so again; I believe some were working off Britain as late as the 1930s but were done in by the Great Depression.
5. Diesels can run efficiently either on coal slurry or high-quality fuel made from coal.
Thus, I see no serious reason to be concerned about using oil to utilize coal.
Who is going to make the investment to build steam powered ships? Where are the fossil inputs going to come from to build all theses new steam engines?
The railroad system in the US is in horrible condition. Who is going to rebuild the entire system, and of course, electrify it? Who will put up the investment?
How many sail boats do you think it would take to transport the quantity of coal needed? Who is going to invest in building sail ships in that quantity? Where are the fossil inputs going to come from?
A major theme of the Olduvai Theory is that the most of the coal/wood driven infrastructure and tools that we used to rely on are gone. It would take tremendous amounts of energy inputs to rebuild that infrastructure. Who is that going to be done in a civilization in decline and where are the energy inputs going to come from?
==AC
The switchover from diesel from oil to diesel from coal is no big deal. During World War II the Germans did it in a matter of months. The Democratic governor of Montana wants to turn the eastern part of his state (which already stinks due to sulpher and other crud from refineries, e.g. around Livingston) and he is talking to some big money.
Money talks, Baloney Sausage walks.
This post tells us two things:
- The Olduvai Slope will come;
- It might not be as bad as we may think.
Your comments on Coal are right, it has more potencial than what I wrote.There's something we can never give away, and that's hope. Even if the things like those Poet say seem optimistic we cannot just dismiss them.
Imagine this: hundreds of ofshore wind turbines not directly integrated in the electrical grid, but used in producing methanol from CO2. You could then use that methanol to keep the Wind and Nuclear industries running. Just a dream, but better than nothing.
Yes, this is the main point for the Olduvai theory. The fossile fuels will be practically nonavailable in 200 - 300 years. There will be a lot left in the ground, but it will be too energy-consuming and difficult to get them out, at least from the EROEI viewpoint. Remember, all the easy oil, coal and gas (and uranium) is already used up. But so will be all the easy non-renewable raw materals, like iron or copper ore. Existing raw-materials can be recycled, but not infinitely. Maintaining the infrastructure for renewals-based energy production will more and more difficult. In the end, after 500 - 1000 - 2000 years it will not be possible. Then we will not have even metals at our disposition. Only some iron meteorites, if we are lucky.
At that point the world is effectively back in Stone Age. And we will never again be able to make it to the "civilization". Stone technology will probably provide sustainable life for a rather small population. There is no way to avoid this outcome, but it will take a quite a long time to get there - so it is not our worry now. The only possibility might be fusion power. But we cannot wait too long for it - if it takes too long, it will no more be possible to build fusion reactors and the game is definitively over.
src: Statistics Class Notes
I just hadn't anything else easy to use.
Thanks anyway for your help in looking at this Khebab. Any values for U?
Let's just make it cool to be sterilized. As Doug Stanhope says, next time you hear that someone has chosen not to further destroy this planet by procreating - show them your gratitude.
What we need is for people to have FEWER children, not more. Subsiidise Abortion? How about free contraception to boot? Yet religious nuts (including Bush, Pope Ratzinger, ayatullahs, etc.) insist on multiplying until Malthus rears his ugly head. Maybe it's religion that should be banned, or at least discouraged by taxing churches like any other business. Maybe regulate churches to death like bars.
As each day goes by, I'm sooooo much gladder I never had any kids - for their sake! To make matters worse, religiousness is on the rise even as the world starts the involuntary powerdown. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?
A possible "solution" is people learn to use power only when the sun makes it. Interconnection helps, but the Earth rotates. Oops. The plus side: Nobody says we couldn't adjust. The minus side: Nobody says we shouldn't have to adjust.
I'm of course assuming that a way is found to make PV panels en masse, a hazardous assumption.
Have you read the Hirsch Report? If not please do.
In the near term the problem Peak Oil will impose is the scarcity of liquid fuels, not electricity. My post shows you that we are on the edge of a Oil Olduvai Cliff, and there's not much PV can do about it.
I believe (hope?) that Renewables and Condoms can keep us above that 30% treshold.
The reason I feel optimistic is that the American Public, led by a responsible government, can and will change its ways.
We can begin by instituting a national conservation program.
I wonder how many millions of barrels per day could be shaven from our current consumption if our leaders mandated that we use energy more prudently. I have read that the Europeans are using 50% less energy per person then their American counterparts. I think this gives us a range of savings between 5 and 10 million barrels per day.
Plus there is coal to liquids, nuclear & renewables.
The fear mongerer´s have no faith at all in American society to change its wasteful ways. I disagree. Eventually leadership will emerge, its a matter of time, and the public will respond, be it on the national, state or local level.
You may be entirely correct. The quality of our leadership (governmental, corporate, educational, . . . even religious) will largely determine the outcome of events over the next twenty years in the U.S.
Have you read Toynbee? Challenge and response . . . . Our society faces a great challenge and may rise magnificently (though belatedly) to it. After all, the U.S. did this in World War II when the Axis leaders firmly believed Americans were soft, stupid, lazy, corrupt, cowardly and internally weakened by race mixing and jazz.
To date I see no evidence of our leaders rising to the challenge. Very much, it is like the Captain of the Titanic who receives a radio message that there is ice in the area and casually ignores it to go on drinking with his first-class guests. Hours later he went down with his ship, and I do wish it were possible to know his final thoughts.
Best case scenario: Something nasty happens (e.g. nationwide powerdown for a week or so), and public opinion turns on a dime, as it did at Pearl Harbor and as it did to a lesser extent after 11 Sept 01.
Worst case scenario: The spin doctors keep the mainstream media in deep denial until it is too late. Titanic strikes ice berg at full steam, and most of the black gang (coal shovellers and third-class passengers (Irish immigrants) die, while most of the First Class passengers get seats in the life boats. When dieoffs come, the poor die off disproportionately, as is now happening in Africa.
In my opinion, best and worst case scenarios are about equally likely, say about one chance in four of either happening. More likely is something in between, where some countries and regions do reasonably well and others lose eighty percent or more of their populations.
I would like to end on a cheerful note, but it is a fact of life that the closer you get to the ice berg going full steam ahead, the less likely it that you will be able to slow down or turn away to avoid disaster. My guess is that the next eighteen months will be critical--only a WAG.
Awareness of oil depletion will enter the mainstream because most of us fill up our tanks, air condition & heat our homes, buy food for our families. Some of us travel abroad.(brazil-$1.30 per liter of gas, almost $5 per gallon) The wasteful use of oil will end, it´s a matter of when.
That´s why I can´t put a percentage or an odds play on what type of leadership will emerge. I am not old enough to have lived through World War II, however I can intuit that this period was a powerful display of what American´s, Germans, you name the society, are capable of ádapting to with the proper focus and end goals. I cannot easily discard this, pretend that the character of America, Britain, Brazil, etc, has sunken to a level of slothful, inflexible and hallucinatory behavior. That´s propaganda. This in a nutshell is why I am not panicing about our future.
I think you are correct. It is not time to panic, and in any case, panic is counterproductive and will merely make things worse.
The fearmongers are out there selling fear, no doubt about it, and I strongly recommend Michael Chrichton's STATE OF FEAR.
However, having said all that, I have lived a long time and plant to go on as long as zest for living remains. One thing that has impressed me is the role of irrationality, for example, in financial markets.
I do think the Titanic analogy is apt. I am sincerely puzzled by the behavior of the captain of the Titanic, expecially because I know real-wold sea captains and also people who cruise small sailboats around the world. Any experienced seaman, when he gets a report of ice sighted reduces speed immediately, alerts the lookouts, and typically you check your radars etc. to make sure they are working correctly, maybe check the pumps, radios, etc. Why the captain of the Titanic behaved as he did, is, to the best of my knowledge, an insoluable problem.
Why our leaders focus more on manipulating public opinion and winning elections than they do on dealing with urgent and fundamental problems--alas, I understand that all too well.
1. Why did he go for a speed record on the maiden voyage and thereby do major, huge and expensive damage to brand new engines? To me this is insane and irresponsible and unexplainable by any information of which I am aware.
2. Give poor visibility and warnings of ice, why did he not order "Half-speed ahead!"? His failure to reduce speed violates every tenet of seamanship going back 500 or more years, and IMHO is criminal irresponsibility--plus is utterly inexplicable. Even had the Titanic been unsinkable, it would have sustained horrendous and extremely expensive damage from striking a berg. Note that the captain of the nearby SS California stopped engines and floated because of the ice hazard. That was prudent, but not absolutely necessary, because one can make a case for at least maintaining steerege way when in an ice field.
Few things scare me. Fog at sea is one of them. Floating ice is another.
My understanding is that the captain of the Titanic told his radioman to check the radar. While his radioman was trying to invent radar, they hit the berg.
Well economics will do something about energy sources although there is no looming (widespread anyway) crisis to be had.
There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels.They are not currently the fuel source of choice only because they are not the cheapest.Lately a lot of developments are happening in response to higher prices.. Hybrid cars, cellulosic ethanol breakthroughs, improved solar, advances in energy efficiency and research into methane hydrates(To name only a few).Some of these technologies are competitive now with oil and gas prices of late.And with mass production they become much cheaper(This has been proven time and again)
In short, anything that is TECHNICALLY feasible also has the potential to become economically feasible with the right price signals and technology.This is how fossil fuels will be eventually replaced and alternatives will take over.
Doomsdayers will say that is looking at the world with rose colored glasses and things can't be developed fast enough to replace oil and gas.I believe otherwise.I do not believe oil and gas production will fall off of a cliff, rather, high prices will lead to conservation, competition, efficiency, and create massive opportunities for countries like the United States to manufacture their own energy, slash their trade defecit and bolster the economy.I personally believe that after oil peaks (Quite a few years from now or next week) there will be a relatively long plateau.(Decades) This plateau will create the price signals and therefore the real incentives for alternative energy sources to be developed in earnest.
Could oil and gas shortages create short term economic pain.Absolutely.But if you want to see people conserve energy, high prices will do it.If you want efficiency, ingenuity and the awesome power of free enterprise to kick in and provide alternatives for a profit, higher energy prices are needed.And they will come, for a while anyway.