From: "Jay Hanson" To: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" Subject: Re: oil and the world-system Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:24:42 -1000 charset="iso-8859-1" From: christopher chase-dunn >the geological consensus is that world oil extraction will plateau >somewhere between 2010 and 2030. This does not mean that oil production Thank you for your comments Christopher. I agree that this issue warrants intense discussion. I would also like to point out that WRI's estimates lie on the conservative side of the spectrum. See, for example, the recent FORBES. Franco Bernabe, chief executive of the Italian oil company ENI SpA, expects the world to experience 1970s-style oil shocks starting sometime between 2000 and 2005. http://www.forbes.com/asp/redir.asp?/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm ( I think Bernabe relies on Petroconsultants' analysis. ) >2) There are better and worse substitutes for conventional fossil fuels. In terms of "energy quality", nothing matches oil. I do not believe it is possible to run a consumer economy (as we know it) without oil. Here is a snip from my REQUIEM at www.dieoff.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- [snip] _________________ ENERGY EFFICIENCY There are "theoretical minimum" energy requirements to do a certain amount of work. For example, lifting a ton of rock 100 meters out of the ground requires approximately 235 kilocalories (kcal) of energy to overcome gravity -- the higher the lift, the greater the minimum energy requirements. But in practice, we need much more energy than the theoretical minimum because energy is "wasted" building and operating machinery needed to lift the rock. The difference between the theoretical minimum and the actual energy used is known as "energy efficiency". New technologies can increase the amount of work that energy can do by increasing energy efficiency, but technology can not overcome theoretical minimums. Technology can not repeal the laws of thermodynamics. _____________ ENERGY PROFIT We use up or "waste" energy in systems that supply energy -- such as oil-fired power plants. Energy is wasted when exploring for oil, building the machinery to mine the oil, mining the oil, building and operating the power plant, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plant, and so on. The difference between the amount of energy generated and the amount of energy wasted is known as the "energy profit". We presently mine our fossil fuels from the Earth's crust. The most concentrated and most accessible fuel is mined first, thereafter more and more energy is required to mine and refine poorer and poorer quality fuels. It has been estimated that by 2005, it will require more energy to look for and mine domestic oil than the amount of energy recovered. In other words, it won't make energy sense to look for new oil in the US after 2005, because we will spend more energy than we will recover.[15] Decreasing energy profits set up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as it becomes less "energy efficient", everything else will also become less "energy efficient" -- including other forms of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal extraction. Energy efficiency places absolute limits on how much energy we can afford to pay for imported energy. For example, if it takes two barrels of oil to produce the goods and services required to pay for one barrel of imported oil, we can not afford to pay for imported oil -- period.[16] During the next hundred years, the energy profit for fossil fuel plants (oil, gas, and coal) will become negative. It is fundamentally impossible to provide a constant level of energy while aggregate energy profit drops. Keeping the production of goods and services at current levels will require more energy than we now generate. To have more energy in the future means that energy must be diverted now from non-energy sectors of the economy into energy generation. ________________________ FALLING RESOURCE QUALITY Mining resources from the Earth's crust is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The most concentrated and most accessible resources are mined first, thereafter more and more energy is required to mine and refine poorer-and-poorer quality resources: * The hematite ores of the Mesabi Range in Minnesota did contain 60 percent iron, but we have depleted them and now must use lower-quality taconite ores that have an iron content of about 25 percent.[17] * Since the early 1960s, the amount of energy (in fuels, electricity, and capital equipment) required to refine a ton of domestic copper has nearly doubled.[18] * The average energy content of a pound of coal dug in the US has dropped 14 percent since 1955. * The amount of energy to drill an average foot of oil well has tripled since 1945.[19] When resource quality is defined in terms of energy investment, the record clearly shows that quality is declining across almost the entire spectrum of resources. From 1972 to 1982, the fraction of GDP allocated to natural resource extraction grew from four percent to ten percent.[20] At some point in the future, mining will stop because the energy costs will have become too great. ______________ ENERGY QUALITY And contrary to a commonly held belief, rising fuel prices will not create new supplies of fuel ... despite quadrupling prices for oil and gas products, the "moral equivalent of war", and a 280 percent increase in drilling, the United States is producing less oil today than it did in 1973. -- Gever, et al. One of the most important aspects of energy is its "quality". Different kinds of fuel have different qualities. For example, coal contains more energy per pound than wood, which makes coal more efficient to store and transport than wood. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal; it is easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive uses only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.[21] Oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up about 38 percent of the world energy supply. No other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of extractablility, transportability, versatility and cost. These are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the middle of this century, and these qualities are as relevant today as they were then: If one considers the last one hundred years of the U.S. experience, fuel use and economic output are highly correlated. An important measure of fuel efficiency is the ratio of energy use to the gross national product, E/GNP. The E/GNP ratio has fallen by about 42% since 1929. We find that the improvement in energy efficiency is due principally to three factors: (1) shifts to higher quality fuels such as petroleum and primary electricity; (2) shifts in energy use between households and other sectors; and (3) higher fuel prices. Energy quality is by far the dominant factor.[22] Per capita energy use in the US has been rising since 1991.[23] World oil consumption rose by 2.4 percent in 1996 to 69.55 million barrels a day[24] with OPEC output hitting an 18-year high of 27.39 million barrels a day in August of 1997.[25] Global oil production is expected to "peak" sometime around the year 2005.[26] As oil is depleted and replaced by lower quality fuels, energy efficiency will also decline. We can't depend on domestic gas because it will be effectively depleted by the year 2020.[27] Even if the energy profit for domestic coal continues to fall at the same rate as it has, it will thermodynamically unrecoverable by the year 2040.[28] Nothing can replace conventional oil, gas, and coal. Several studies indicate no more than 200 million Americans could be supported at a decent standard of living on solar technologies. [29] Youngquist states that oil sands will never be a major world supply, and further suggests that oil shales may never be commercially viable.[30] The World Energy Commission says that a shortage of uranium limits the expansion of conventional nuclear energy.[31] By 2035, all American nuclear plants will have been decommissioned and represent an energy-production loss equivalent to about 9 million barrels[32] of oil per day. Moreover, America, Germany, and France have all dropped their fast-breeder reactor programs![33] [snip] References at www.dieoff.org I have some specifics concerning various alternative energy at: http://dieoff.org/page143.htm In my view, energy is the key to it all. I encourage further discussion. Jay