4 ms·

One thing a lot of the (skeptic) comments here don't take into account is the role of petrol in mining. Petrol is the single discovery that has made basically a

One thing a lot of the (skeptic) comments here don't take into account is the role of petrol in mining. Petrol is the single discovery that has made basically all of modern technology and manufacturing possible. Petrol is incredibly energy-dense and is still incredibly cheap. Without it, there's no plastic, no mining and basically no transport. It's also worth mentioning that without petrol there would be no solar panels and no large scale wind turbine installations. Interested readers might like to read about the concept of "energy returned on energy invested" or EROEI [1], which demonstrates the limitations of renewable energies and the implications of peak petrol. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Photovoltaic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...

dredmorbius 7y ago
Though he's scarcely a Limits to Growth devotee, it was Daniel Yergin's The Prize (book and BBC/PBS series) which hammered home the absolutely staggering impact of petroleum on human growth and technological progress. https://www.worldcat.org/title/prize-the-epic-quest-for-oil-money-power-with-a-new-epilogue/oclc/811407310 https://www.worldcat.org/title/prize-the-epic-quest-for-oil-... Vaclav Smil's Energy and Civilization tells the history, and impact, of energy on humanprogress evenmore specifically, and over a far longer period, through five eras: hunter-gatherer, ag, coal, oil, and whatever it is that comes next. https://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-and-civilization-a-history/oclc/1029804020 https://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-and-civilization-a-his... EROEI is a large part of that, though it doesn't tell the whole story. EROEI of coal is often higher than petroleum, but petroleum's handling characteristics -- fluid rather than solid -- and inherent portability, over both long distances and short, make it vastly more useful and flexible, most especially in motive applications, and transport in particular. Some of petroleum's role in mining can be replaced by electricity (see vast open-pit electrically-powered bucket excavators), so long as there's a primary energy source for that. Others not so much: global bulk liquid and ore transport is highly tied to oil-fueled marine deisel engines.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
Agree EROEI is profoundly important for planning the next century. However, your point doesn’t change the core criticism of the “skeptic” audience. Yes we use petrol for plastic but if it disappeared we could use plants. Yes we use petrol for heavy machines but if they disappeared we could use batteries. And yes, there’s not enough petroleum available to build all the batteries and plant plastic fabrication facilities we’d need to replace the petroleum economy. So that sounds bad. Except it’s only bad if all that happens quickly, at the same time. And it won’t. Batteries will become economical before we run out of petroleum for plastic. I’m not saying they’re right, but the skeptic argument is that the economy will adapt to these challenges one at a time. What’s the counter argument?

dredmorbius 7y ago

Though he's scarcely a Limits to Growth devotee, it was Daniel Yergin's The Prize (book and BBC/PBS series) which hammered home the absolutely staggering impact of petroleum on human growth and technological progress. https://www.worldcat.org/title/prize-the-epic-quest-for-oil-money-power-with-a-new-epilogue/oclc/811407310 https://www.worldcat.org/title/prize-the-epic-quest-for-oil-... Vaclav Smil's Energy and Civilization tells the history, and impact, of energy on humanprogress evenmore specifically, and over a far longer period, through five eras: hunter-gatherer, ag, coal, oil, and whatever it is that comes next. https://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-and-civilization-a-history/oclc/1029804020 https://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-and-civilization-a-his... EROEI is a large part of that, though it doesn't tell the whole story. EROEI of coal is often higher than petroleum, but petroleum's handling characteristics -- fluid rather than solid -- and inherent portability, over both long distances and short, make it vastly more useful and flexible, most especially in motive applications, and transport in particular. Some of petroleum's role in mining can be replaced by electricity (see vast open-pit electrically-powered bucket excavators), so long as there's a primary energy source for that. Others not so much: global bulk liquid and ore transport is highly tied to oil-fueled marine deisel engines.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

Agree EROEI is profoundly important for planning the next century. However, your point doesn’t change the core criticism of the “skeptic” audience. Yes we use petrol for plastic but if it disappeared we could use plants. Yes we use petrol for heavy machines but if they disappeared we could use batteries. And yes, there’s not enough petroleum available to build all the batteries and plant plastic fabrication facilities we’d need to replace the petroleum economy. So that sounds bad. Except it’s only bad if all that happens quickly, at the same time. And it won’t. Batteries will become economical before we run out of petroleum for plastic. I’m not saying they’re right, but the skeptic argument is that the economy will adapt to these challenges one at a time. What’s the counter argument?