6 ms·

I can't imagine energy staying this low for very long. 80+% is fossil: increasing consumption, finite supply. Short term booms and busts are possible, but I fai

by api 12y ago

I can't imagine energy staying this low for very long. 80+% is fossil: increasing consumption, finite supply. Short term booms and busts are possible, but I fail to understand how the laws of physics permit a secular bear market in energy until we have something really replacing fossil fuels. Conventional wisdom seems frequently wrong in economics. If deflation is now the expectation, inflation might be around the corner.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 12y ago
...fossil... finite supply. This is only true in a trivial sense. As it should be clear by now (although to be fair it also should have been clear 30 years ago), more effective extraction methods are developed at a steady pace. [EDIT: since this has been confused multiple times, let me clarify that "trivial" and "absolute" are not antonyms.]
- jacquesm 12y ago
  No, it is very true in an absolute sense as well. It's just that border keeps on shifting but underneath that there is a very real finite amount that exists, and not all of that will ever be extracted.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    I was thinking of exactly that absolute sense. I consider that sense trivial, in that it won't ever affect our economic situation. (I assume we'll have some other way of making plastics centuries from now when extraction tech finally stops improving.)
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > I consider that sense trivial, in that it won't ever affect our economic situation. It is already affecting our economic situation in a very real sense and it has done so catastrophically on several occasions in the past. Imagine a world where oil costs $500 / barrel and you're looking at a totally different world than the one we live in today. That would completely alter the balance of power.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Well, let's not bicker. If you're contemplating sustained (not temporary spikes!) $500/b then you don't agree with TFA's claim that "energy prices are going relentlessly down", although you state above that the feasible extraction "border keeps on shifting". Presumably you envision some factor that will stop innovation in extraction, which would be interesting to learn.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        We are awash in energy, that's not the problem. The problem is in capturing that energy and that energy comes in many forms and only oil currently allows you to project power on a global scale. "It's raining soup, and all we have is forks" And energy prices for say electricity could be going down while energy prices for petroleum could be going through the roof. Utility pricing for energy is historically coupled to the oil price but that won't be sustainable as an ever larger chunk of the energy consumed electrically is generated by renewables or nuclear. The big wildcards are: - ITER - further dramatic reduction in solar panel pricing - mass transportation using electricity - battery technology - the first successful long range electrical airplane
      - YokoZar 12y ago
        Imagine a world where there exists a perfect substitute for oil at $150 / barrel through some form of magical synthesis using renewable energy sources. Today, that world would look almost identical, since oil has never been expensive enough to justify using such a hypothetical technology. But it would never look like the naiive "oil is a finite resource and must therefore always increase in price" world foretold by peak oil doomsayers.
  - delbel 12y ago
    Some scientist even disagree with that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      See also: cold fusion.
- api 12y ago
  This will be true until it isn't. Since supply is absolutely finite and EROEI declines over time (easy reserves are used first), fossil fuel extraction as a general economic phenomenon is basically a bubble. Bubbles have a way of going higher and further than anyone expects. As they do so, everyone gets their turn to look like a fool. Initially the bubble skeptics look like idiots and the believers are repeatedly proven right as the bubble builds and builds. Then the bubble pops and the situation inverts. When bubbles do pop they often do so rapidly and destructively. To the extent that our civilization is dependent upon fossil fuels, complex technological civilization is therefore also a bubble. I'm really surprised this doesn't scare the crap out of more people. It's really simple math and physics, and most of the people here have lived through two economic mega-bubbles so you all know what a bubble looks like. You've all seen how "it's different this time" until it isn't, and then crash. If we're still 80+% dependent upon fossil fuels and a real crash comes, this could be an extinction level event. It would likely trigger a global thermonuclear or biological war, since game theoretically the rational course of action would be to attempt to exterminate the rest of humanity as quickly as possible so you have some chance of survival in the face of a rapidly collapsing resource base. A likely scenario would be a brutal Darwinian war of all against all played out in a matter of years, and given our capacity for destruction it's possible that nobody would win. Slower but equally catastrophic scenarios are possible too. An oil crash could lead to immense expansion of the use of coal and coal-to-liquids technology, which would cause exponential increases in CO2 emissions per unit energy generated. As EROEI crashes, we just dig up exponentially increasing quantities of carbon since the net energy profit per unit is declining. If we think we have a carbon problem now, imagine the emission curve going hockey stick. This ends with planetary desertification, an anoxic event, or some kind of chaotic flip to a new ice age. This IMHO is the existential threat faced by humanity in the 21st century. Given the likelihood that similar deposits of easy energy are found elsewhere in the universe, I personally think this is a good candidate for one of the "great filters." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter (I've speculated that the first great filter is warfare, the second is ecology, and the third is a non-expansionary planetary utopia -- leading to gradual disengagement, birth rate collapse, and fade to black. A pleasant extinction event if you will.)
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Even if fossil fuel supplies were known to be infinite, our use of them is not because of the impact of their emissions.
- brc 12y ago
  The Pacific Ocean is finite, but if I try and empty it with a bucket or even a fire truck, it might as well be infinite. Most explanations of 'peak' hydrocarbons make two errors - the first is that they don't understand what reserves are, and the second is that they don't factor in technological innovation as a cost reducing force. People like to throw around 'moores law' as applying to solar and that it will cause it to overtake other energy - but what they forget is that moores-law changes also apply to extraction technology, mind that EROEI continues to favour hydrocarbon based technology, and will do so for a long, long time.
  - api 12y ago
    Start with buckets but add exponential growth. The Pacific will be empty in short order. 1 bucket, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...
beatpanda 12y ago
The development and adoption of technologies that will (and must[1][2]) replace fossil fuels are accelerating[3][4]. The combined effect of better technology and legislation will drive demand for fossil fuels into the ground over the next few decades. There is some speculation[5] that this is why Saudi Arabia won't cut production to drive oil prices back up. [1]http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PB-unburnable-carbon-2013-wasted-capital-stranded-assets.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/20... [2]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature1... [3]http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/24/us-solar-energy-capacity-grew-an-astounding-418-from-2010-2014/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/24/us-solar-energy-capacity... [4]http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/06/technological-advancements-drove-solar-panel-prices/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/06/technological-advancemen... [5]http://www.energypost.eu/historic-moment-saudi-arabia-sees-end-oil-age-coming-opens-valves-carbon-bubble/ http://www.energypost.eu/historic-moment-saudi-arabia-sees-e...
holri 12y ago
For example Germans have the electrical energy equivalent of 21 nuclear reactors installed on their house roofs in the form of solar cells nowadays. Sustainable energy has very low variable costs.

by api 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jessaustin 12y ago

...fossil... finite supply. This is only true in a trivial sense. As it should be clear by now (although to be fair it also should have been clear 30 years ago), more effective extraction methods are developed at a steady pace. [EDIT: since this has been confused multiple times, let me clarify that "trivial" and "absolute" are not antonyms.]

jacquesm 12y ago
No, it is very true in an absolute sense as well. It's just that border keeps on shifting but underneath that there is a very real finite amount that exists, and not all of that will ever be extracted.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  I was thinking of exactly that absolute sense. I consider that sense trivial, in that it won't ever affect our economic situation. (I assume we'll have some other way of making plastics centuries from now when extraction tech finally stops improving.)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > I consider that sense trivial, in that it won't ever affect our economic situation. It is already affecting our economic situation in a very real sense and it has done so catastrophically on several occasions in the past. Imagine a world where oil costs $500 / barrel and you're looking at a totally different world than the one we live in today. That would completely alter the balance of power.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Well, let's not bicker. If you're contemplating sustained (not temporary spikes!) $500/b then you don't agree with TFA's claim that "energy prices are going relentlessly down", although you state above that the feasible extraction "border keeps on shifting". Presumably you envision some factor that will stop innovation in extraction, which would be interesting to learn.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        We are awash in energy, that's not the problem. The problem is in capturing that energy and that energy comes in many forms and only oil currently allows you to project power on a global scale. "It's raining soup, and all we have is forks" And energy prices for say electricity could be going down while energy prices for petroleum could be going through the roof. Utility pricing for energy is historically coupled to the oil price but that won't be sustainable as an ever larger chunk of the energy consumed electrically is generated by renewables or nuclear. The big wildcards are: - ITER - further dramatic reduction in solar panel pricing - mass transportation using electricity - battery technology - the first successful long range electrical airplane
    - YokoZar 12y ago
      Imagine a world where there exists a perfect substitute for oil at $150 / barrel through some form of magical synthesis using renewable energy sources. Today, that world would look almost identical, since oil has never been expensive enough to justify using such a hypothetical technology. But it would never look like the naiive "oil is a finite resource and must therefore always increase in price" world foretold by peak oil doomsayers.
- delbel 12y ago
  Some scientist even disagree with that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    See also: cold fusion.
api 12y ago
This will be true until it isn't. Since supply is absolutely finite and EROEI declines over time (easy reserves are used first), fossil fuel extraction as a general economic phenomenon is basically a bubble. Bubbles have a way of going higher and further than anyone expects. As they do so, everyone gets their turn to look like a fool. Initially the bubble skeptics look like idiots and the believers are repeatedly proven right as the bubble builds and builds. Then the bubble pops and the situation inverts. When bubbles do pop they often do so rapidly and destructively. To the extent that our civilization is dependent upon fossil fuels, complex technological civilization is therefore also a bubble. I'm really surprised this doesn't scare the crap out of more people. It's really simple math and physics, and most of the people here have lived through two economic mega-bubbles so you all know what a bubble looks like. You've all seen how "it's different this time" until it isn't, and then crash. If we're still 80+% dependent upon fossil fuels and a real crash comes, this could be an extinction level event. It would likely trigger a global thermonuclear or biological war, since game theoretically the rational course of action would be to attempt to exterminate the rest of humanity as quickly as possible so you have some chance of survival in the face of a rapidly collapsing resource base. A likely scenario would be a brutal Darwinian war of all against all played out in a matter of years, and given our capacity for destruction it's possible that nobody would win. Slower but equally catastrophic scenarios are possible too. An oil crash could lead to immense expansion of the use of coal and coal-to-liquids technology, which would cause exponential increases in CO2 emissions per unit energy generated. As EROEI crashes, we just dig up exponentially increasing quantities of carbon since the net energy profit per unit is declining. If we think we have a carbon problem now, imagine the emission curve going hockey stick. This ends with planetary desertification, an anoxic event, or some kind of chaotic flip to a new ice age. This IMHO is the existential threat faced by humanity in the 21st century. Given the likelihood that similar deposits of easy energy are found elsewhere in the universe, I personally think this is a good candidate for one of the "great filters." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter (I've speculated that the first great filter is warfare, the second is ecology, and the third is a non-expansionary planetary utopia -- leading to gradual disengagement, birth rate collapse, and fade to black. A pleasant extinction event if you will.)
snowwrestler 12y ago
Even if fossil fuel supplies were known to be infinite, our use of them is not because of the impact of their emissions.
brc 12y ago
The Pacific Ocean is finite, but if I try and empty it with a bucket or even a fire truck, it might as well be infinite. Most explanations of 'peak' hydrocarbons make two errors - the first is that they don't understand what reserves are, and the second is that they don't factor in technological innovation as a cost reducing force. People like to throw around 'moores law' as applying to solar and that it will cause it to overtake other energy - but what they forget is that moores-law changes also apply to extraction technology, mind that EROEI continues to favour hydrocarbon based technology, and will do so for a long, long time.
- api 12y ago
  Start with buckets but add exponential growth. The Pacific will be empty in short order. 1 bucket, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...

beatpanda 12y ago

The development and adoption of technologies that will (and must[1][2]) replace fossil fuels are accelerating[3][4]. The combined effect of better technology and legislation will drive demand for fossil fuels into the ground over the next few decades. There is some speculation[5] that this is why Saudi Arabia won't cut production to drive oil prices back up. [1]http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/PB-unburnable-carbon-2013-wasted-capital-stranded-assets.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/20... [2]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature1... [3]http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/24/us-solar-energy-capacity-grew-an-astounding-418-from-2010-2014/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/24/us-solar-energy-capacity... [4]http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/06/technological-advancements-drove-solar-panel-prices/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/06/technological-advancemen... [5]http://www.energypost.eu/historic-moment-saudi-arabia-sees-end-oil-age-coming-opens-valves-carbon-bubble/ http://www.energypost.eu/historic-moment-saudi-arabia-sees-e...

holri 12y ago

For example Germans have the electrical energy equivalent of 21 nuclear reactors installed on their house roofs in the form of solar cells nowadays. Sustainable energy has very low variable costs.