# The end of the oil era: The fall of civilization, or just a bump in the road? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075 "2003-06-24T17:11:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/341 "2014-06-17T04:34:40Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > Please check the SciAm article from 2013 in my previous post. Here’s a repost of the link: > > [Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/) > > It’s 6-7. I’ll comment on it later. > [@](#): > > EROI is the ratio of of usable energy vs. energy expended to make the system. Here’s a repost of the wiki link: > > [Energy return on investment - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested) > > That is, EROI = usable energy / energy expended. > > I don’t understand how EPBT is the same as EROI. Well, you seem to like The Oil Drum, so here is one of their[links](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3910): > [@](#): > > Explicit net energy analysis of photovoltaic (PV) energy appears to be nearly non-existent. However several studies report the time required for “energy pay back,” and if we know the lifetime of the module or system, an EROI of sorts can be calculated. In fact, these trends can be forecasted, and frankly I think solar power might lead us back to an energy regime that resembles the '30s or even the '20s; that is, let the good times roll! ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/342 "2014-06-18T16:06:29Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I’ll comment on it later. > > Well, you seem to like The Oil Drum, so here is one of their[links](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3910): > > In fact, these trends can be forecasted, and frankly I think solar power might lead us back to an energy regime that resembles the '30s or even the '20s; that is, let the good times roll! I read Raugei’s study on EROI for PVs found here: > **[Center for Life Cycle Analysis (CLCA) at Columbia University](http://www.clca.columbia.edu/publications.html)** > > The Center for Life Cycle Analysis(LCA) of Columbia University was formed in the spring of 2006 with the objective of conducting comprehensive LCAs of energy systems. LCA provides a framework for quantifying the potential environmental impacts of... and here’s what I gathered: the EROI of 30 is based on the electricity output of the panel across its lifetime (30 years) minus the EBPT. However, for the electricity to be used, the energy conversion efficiency of the electricity grid has to be included, which means only a fraction of the electricity output will be available. Given that, EROI is 6. Finally, there may be other energy inputs to consider. For example, there is a recently published book about this issue, with the authors studying solar plants in Spain. I have not read the book, but there is a review here: “Tilting at Windmills, Spain’s disastrous attempt to replace fossil fuels with Solar Photovoltaics” [http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/](http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/) The conclusion is that the EROI for the solar plants in Spain is 2.45. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/343 "2014-06-27T16:24:49Z")
“Oil prices started to skyrocket when one quarter of global supplies went into irreversible decline” > [@](#): > > This is the 1st post on the BP Statistical Review 2014 which has been published recently. [http://crudeoilpeak.info/oil-prices-started-to-skyrocket-when-one-quarter-of-global-supplies-went-into-irreversible-decline](http://crudeoilpeak.info/oil-prices-started-to-skyrocket-when-one-quarter-of-global-supplies-went-into-irreversible-decline) ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/344 "2014-06-28T16:49:06Z")
It is my understanding that only about 2-3% of the oil used in the US is used for agricultural purposes. So I don’t think we will be starving to death anytime soon. Civilizations have survived plagues, wars, revolutions, etc. If you look at the period of 1914-1945 many european nations went through a lot of turmoil. A world war, the spanish flu, political unrest, the great depression, the second world war. And civilization survived. I don’t see how people living in the suburbs not being able to drive to the grocery whenever they are in the mood will destroy civilization if wars and plagues can’t do it. Besides, people are smart. I assume there will be a shift towards expanded public transit or private companies that provide something akin to public transit (carpools or small passenger vans that can hold 10 people, etc). It’ll be an adjustment but people will survive. The vast majority of oil is used for personal vehicles and semis. so my view is it’ll mostly just be a downshift in lifestyle and an inconvenience. Shipping will take longer (maybe the 2 day cross country shipping we are used to will stop), and people will have to carpool or rely on public/private transit to get to work or run errands. But we are facing other resource shortages other than oil. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/345 "2014-06-29T02:26:02Z")
According to this source, [http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/](http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/) during the next few years China will take up almost half of oil demand growth. The chart in this source > **[Where are Chinese Cars in their Oil Consumption?](http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/01/where-are-chinese-cars-in-their-oil.html)** shows that only a fraction of oil is used for personal transport. Most of it is used for other forms of transport (including deliveries), industry, etc. Given that, I’m guessing that much of oil worldwide is used for manufacturing and shipping, and that includes manufacturing and shipping passenger vehicles used for personal transport. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/346 "2014-07-15T10:27:08Z")
“Fossil industry is the subprime danger of this cycle” > [@](#): > > The cumulative blitz on exploration and production over the past six years has been $5.4 trillion, yet little has come of it. Output from conventional fields peaked in 2005. Not a single large project has come on stream at a break-even cost below $80 a barrel for almost three years. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans\_pritchard/10957292/Fossil-industry-is-the-subprime-danger-of-this-cycle.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10957292/Fossil-industry-is-the-subprime-danger-of-this-cycle.html) “Orwellian Newspeak and the oil industry’s fake abundance story” > **[Orwellian Newspeak and the oil industry's fake abundance story](http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2014/07/orwellian-newspeak-and-oil-industrys.html)** > > When what you are saying is so obviously at odds with the plain truth, it is useful to choose your words carefully to obscure this fact. Thi... which includes references to oil growth and price. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/347 "2014-08-02T02:13:22Z")
“As cash flow flattens, major energy companies increase debt, sell assets” > [@](#): > > Cash from operations for major energy companies has flattened in line with flat crude oil prices, which have had the lowest price volatility in years. Based on data compiled from quarterly reports, for the year ending March 31, 2014, cash from operations for 127 major oil and natural gas companies totaled $568 billion, and major uses of cash totaled $677 billion, a difference of almost $110 billion. This shortfall was filled through a $106 billion net increase in debt and $73 billion from sales of assets, which increased the overall cash balance. The gap between cash from operations and major uses of cash has widened in recent years from a low of $18 billion in 2010 to $100 billion to $120 billion during the past three years. [http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17311](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17311) ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/348 "2014-08-02T16:39:53Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > “Fossil industry is the subprime danger of this cycle” > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans\_pritchard/10957292/Fossil-industry-is-the-subprime-danger-of-this-cycle.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10957292/Fossil-industry-is-the-subprime-danger-of-this-cycle.html) > > “Orwellian Newspeak and the oil industry’s fake abundance story” > > [Resource Insights: Orwellian Newspeak and the oil industry's fake abundance story](http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2014/07/orwellian-newspeak-and-oil-industrys.html) > > which includes references to oil growth and price. Events certainly make a compelling case that peak oil is indeed almost upon us. Look what is happening at [Exxon](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-31/u-s-index-futures-slide-as-whole-foods-kraft-decline.html): > [@](#): > > Exxon tumbled 4.2 percent for the largest drop since August 2011. Oil and gas output dropped 5.7 percent to the equivalent of 3.84 million barrels of crude a day, the lowest since the third quarter of 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Exxon had been expected to post daily output equivalent to 3.96 million barrels, based on the average of six analysts’ estimates. Their output is dropping and coming in below estimates. Clear support for the notion that peak oil is nigh. But the thread is about ‘the end of civilization as we know it’ being the result of peak oil, and your own articles suggest that isn’t the case. For the shit to really hit the fan, there would have to be nothing to pick up the slack as oil output declines. But, from your first article: > [@](#): > > They are likely to be left holding a clutch of worthless projects as renewable technology sweeps in below radar, and the Washington-Beijing axis embraces a greener agenda. > [@](#): > > In any case, staggering gains in solar power - and soon battery storage as well - threatens to undercut the oil industry with lightning speed, perhaps in a race with cheap nuclear power from a coming generation of molten salt reactors. > [@](#): > > Brokers Sanford Bernstein say we are entering an era of “global energy deflation” where gains in solar technology must relentlessly erode the viability of the fossil nexus, since it goes only in one direction. Deep sea drilling will become pointless. We can leave the Arctic alone. > Once the crossover point is reached - and photovoltaic energy already competes with oil, diesel and liquefied natural gas in much of Asia without subsidies - it must surely turn into a stampede. My guess is that the world energy landscape will already look radically different in the early 2020s. Look at an [analysis](http://seekingalpha.com/article/2372175-sunpower-q2-earnings-key-takeaways?app=1&uprof=45) of one successful solar company: > [@](#): > > Global solar shipments are expected to grow by as much as 29% this year to around 52 GW, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Although SunPower is running its factories at near full utilization, its manufacturing capacity has been expanding at a slower rate compared to the market and this is likely to be restricting its market share growth. The company has improved manufacturing capacity from around 1.1 GW in 2013 to close to 1.3 GW currently and this number should increase to around 1.8 GW by 2017 as the new Fab 4 plant, which is under construction in the Philippines, ramps up. This would increase the company’s production capacity by around 40% over current levels. Given that SunPower intends to at least double its market share in the next five years, it noted that it was planning on building its next fabrication unit - dubbed Fab 5 - which would have at least 700 MW of annual panel capacity. While the company has yet to decide on a location for the plant, it could begin production from 2017 onwards. Let that sink in. While your sources state that global oil output has slowed to just a 3% increase over the last 6 years, annual solar output is growing at 29% currently (and the rate is accelerating). The company discussed in the article is increasing their output from 1.1GW in 2013 to at least 2.5GW, ~225% increase over 4-6 years, and yet the stock is down and the article is somewhat skeptical of the company’s ability to compete in part because\* it isn’t growing fast enough compared to the broader industry.\* Also keep in mind that solar output is different in nature from oil output. As oil gets sucked out of the ground, it is gone and you have to go look for another (probably more expensive) source. Build a solar panel fabrication plant and you have a nearly permanent source of output. Build another one, and you’ve doubled your output. It is cumulative. Sure, you need silicon, copper and a little silver, but those don’t present the kind of supply constraints that oil does. The eventual effect is described in [this article](http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/how-solar-and-evs-will-kill-the-last-of-the-industry-dinosaurs-86893): > [@](#): > > Seba is now working on a new book, with even more dramatic forecasts than his first. His new prediction is that by 2030, solar will make the fossil fuel industry more or less redundant. Even more striking is his forecast that electric vehicles will do the same thing to the oil industry by around the same date. > > The predictions are made on the basis that the cost of solar and EV batteries will continue to fall, while the cost to consumers of sourcing energy from fossil fuels through the grid or liquid fuels will continue to rise. Before the decade is out, Seba says, both technologies will pass a tipping point that will eventually sweep the incumbents aside, just as technology and cost developments have done in the computer, internet, media, photographic and telecommunications industries. > > “I am incredibly optimistic that by 2030, nuclear, coal, gas, big hydro, and oil will be all but obsolete,” Seba told RenewEconomy in an interview in San Francisco last month. “The world will be mostly powered by solar and wind, and most new vehicles will be electric. The architecture of energy markets is going from centralized to distributed – in liquids and the electric market.” > [@](#): > > “Basically, EVs were supposed to be expensive and underpowered and weak and 50 years away. Tesla showed all that was wrong. The EV will do to oil what solar will do to coal, nuclear and gas. EVs are a disruptive technology, there is no doubt about that. > > “The propaganda says that it is too expensive and has little range. But if you look at the cost curve of batteries, even Detroit is saying that by 2020 lithium-ion batteries will be at $US200/kWh. > > “The tipping point for the mass market to move from internal combustion engines to EVs is between $US250 and $US300/kWh. Once it gets to $US100/kWh, it is all over. I think we will get to $US250/kWh by 2020. By 2030, when batteries are at $100/kWh, gasoline vehicles will be obsolete. Not on their way out, obsolete.” Seba thinks that mass migration will start around 2018 to 2020. I’m not going to claim that such a revolution is not going to be disruptive or without pain- I think it will be both of those things. But it is a much better outcome than that predicted by proponents of worst case Peak Oil- the notion that the world is just going to go down the drain altogether for lack of energy. It isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/349 "2014-08-03T01:41:17Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > According to this source, > > [http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/](http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/) > > during the next few years China will take up almost half of oil demand growth. The chart in this source > > [Early Warning: Where are Chinese Cars in their Oil Consumption?](http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/01/where-are-chinese-cars-in-their-oil.html) > > shows that only a fraction of oil is used for personal transport. Most of it is used for other forms of transport (including deliveries), industry, etc. > > Given that, I’m guessing that much of oil worldwide is used for manufacturing and shipping, and that includes manufacturing and shipping passenger vehicles used for personal transport. Not sure I understand your point but if meant to extrapolate current % of oil use in China for cars to either future oil use in China or worldwide oil use today, your assumptions aren’t correct. Over half of oil use in the US is for light duty vehicles (though that would include personal-type cars/trucks used in commerce) and as China grows the whole issue or problem will be if there’s a large growth in personal vehicles there. > **[Technology Solutions Archives](https://www.c2es.org/category/climate-solutions/technology-solutions/)** > > Achieving a true low-carbon transition requires an array of innovative technologies, including renewable energy, alternative vehicles, advanced nuclear power, and carbon capture, use and storage. That said, some sloganeering about oil implies that it’s almost all about cars in the world as a whole, which of course it’s not. But cars are a major use of oil worldwide. International shipping (ie literally, by ships not counting planes) is not, accounting for around 4-5% of global oil use. Moreover the scale of ships makes them particularly efficient candidates for alternative fuels, particularly natural gas. Also in part because of scale, ships use residual or heavy fuel oil. This may eventually be curtailed because of (non-CO2) pollution regulations, but as long as there is crude oil recovered, there will be _some_ residual oil, and fewer and fewer uses for it other than ships (heavy fuel oil fired electric power plants and larger building boilers are tending to disappear in most of the world). So like farming, sea transport is very far away from being outright unsustainable for lack of oil, much further away than the car culture is. That said, of course the economics of international supply chains are very sensitive to cost and already changing just because oil has gotten as expensive as it has so far. Further large increases could have dramatic effects. But we’re talking how to do things, not the modern world withering away for lack of oil for ships. In general discussions like this come down in many cases to people who think it’s possible to predict the outcomes of extremely complicated systems like interaction of oil supply and demand in the distant future, and those who think it’s not. Some of the former group are well informed of current facts (others not) but one can agree all the basic facts and disagree how likely it is to make accurate predictions. I don’t think it’s possible. Very important topic, very useful if reliable predictions could be made, but I simply don’t think they can be. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/350 "2014-08-03T02:45:03Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Events certainly make a compelling case that peak oil is indeed almost upon us. Look what is happening at [Exxon](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-31/u-s-index-futures-slide-as-whole-foods-kraft-decline.html): > > Their output is dropping and coming in below estimates. Clear support for the notion that peak oil is nigh. > > But the thread is about ‘the end of civilization as we know it’ being the result of peak oil, and your own articles suggest that isn’t the case. For the shit to really hit the fan, there would have to be nothing to pick up the slack as oil output declines. But, from your first article: > > Look at an [analysis](http://seekingalpha.com/article/2372175-sunpower-q2-earnings-key-takeaways?app=1&uprof=45) of one successful solar company: > > Let that sink in. While your sources state that global oil output has slowed to just a 3% increase over the last 6 years, annual solar output is growing at 29% currently (and the rate is accelerating). The company discussed in the article is increasing their output from 1.1GW in 2013 to at least 2.5GW, ~225% increase over 4-6 years, and yet the stock is down and the article is somewhat skeptical of the company’s ability to compete in part because\* it isn’t growing fast enough compared to the broader industry.\* But the energy return for solar power is at best 6. In an actual study of operating systems in Spain, it was less than 3. More details are given in my previous messages. In addition, to meet various wants, we need an energy return of around 15. To meet standards equivalent to that of the U.S., which is inevitable as the civilization referred to is industrial, we will need even higher. This is equivalent to one Saudi Arabia in new oil every three to four years. > [@](#): > > Also keep in mind that solar output is different in nature from oil output. As oil gets sucked out of the ground, it is gone and you have to go look for another (probably more expensive) source. Build a solar panel fabrication plant and you have a nearly permanent source of output. Build another one, and you’ve doubled your output. It is cumulative. Sure, you need silicon, copper and a little silver, but those don’t present the kind of supply constraints that oil does. > > The eventual effect is described in [this article](http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/how-solar-and-evs-will-kill-the-last-of-the-industry-dinosaurs-86893): Actually, you need lots of oil and other material resources for the manufacturing process. In fact, it’s the energy needed for the manufacturing process that pulls down the energy return. See my previous message for details. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to claim that such a revolution is not going to be disruptive or without pain- I think it will be both of those things. But it is a much better outcome than that predicted by proponents of worst case Peak Oil- the notion that the world is just going to go down the drain altogether for lack of energy. > > It isn’t. As explained in previous messages, the transition process will take place across several decades. But U.S. shale oil is expected to peak by 2020, and extra fossil fuels will be needed for the transition. To make matters worse, unconventional oil has low energy returns, which means the amount of new oil needed has to be even higher to meet growing energy demand plus the transition. Given that, the only hope for this transition is to lower energy and material resource consumption for several decades, which should give us enough surplus energy and material resources for the process. But how is that possible in a global capitalist system? ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/351 "2014-08-03T02:50:05Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Not sure I understand your point but if meant to extrapolate current % of oil use in China for cars to either future oil use in China or worldwide oil use today, your assumptions aren’t correct. Over half of oil use in the US is for light duty vehicles (though that would include personal-type cars/trucks used in commerce) and as China grows the whole issue or problem will be if there’s a large growth in personal vehicles there. > [http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/TransportationModes](http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/TransportationModes) > > That said, some sloganeering about oil implies that it’s almost all about cars in the world as a whole, which of course it’s not. But cars are a major use of oil worldwide. International shipping (ie literally, by ships not counting planes) is not, accounting for around 4-5% of global oil use. Moreover the scale of ships makes them particularly efficient candidates for alternative fuels, particularly natural gas. Also in part because of scale, ships use residual or heavy fuel oil. This may eventually be curtailed because of (non-CO2) pollution regulations, but as long as there is crude oil recovered, there will be _some_ residual oil, and fewer and fewer uses for it other than ships (heavy fuel oil fired electric power plants and larger building boilers are tending to disappear in most of the world). So like farming, sea transport is very far away from being outright unsustainable for lack of oil, much further away than the car culture is. > > That said, of course the economics of international supply chains are very sensitive to cost and already changing just because oil has gotten as expensive as it has so far. Further large increases could have dramatic effects. But we’re talking how to do things, not the modern world withering away for lack of oil for ships. > > In general discussions like this come down in many cases to people who think it’s possible to predict the outcomes of extremely complicated systems like interaction of oil supply and demand in the distant future, and those who think it’s not. Some of the former group are well informed of current facts (others not) but one can agree all the basic facts and disagree how likely it is to make accurate predictions. I don’t think it’s possible. Very important topic, very useful if reliable predictions could be made, but I simply don’t think they can be. Actually, my point is to show that not only are significant amounts of oil being used for industry and manufacturing worldwide (not just China) but the same oil is being used to manufacture cars driven in the U.S. In short, we face two problems: increasing oil demand for basic needs, industry, and manufacturing, and increasing oil demand for a growing global middle class, even as demand destruction is taking place in the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the link shared earlier concerning oil consumption for these three vs. for the rest of the world. Finally, if civilization refers to industrial civilization and a global capitalist system, then I don’t think the topic is simply about “doing things,” especially if various components not just for passenger vehicles but for various manufactured goods have to be shipped overseas. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/352 "2014-08-03T02:58:42Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > But the energy return for solar power is at best 6. In an actual study of operating systems in Spain, it was less than 3. More details are given in my previous messages. > > In addition, to meet various wants, we need an energy return of around 15. To meet standards equivalent to that of the U.S., which is inevitable as the civilization referred to is industrial, we will need even higher. You keep repeating this, but it just isn’t the case. Spain’s solar infrastructure was installed long ago (viewed through the lens of the rapidly-advancing solar industry). And it was mostly installed by BP, The Shittiest Corporation In History. Using Spain as a benchmark is simply inaccurate. Could be a difference of temperament. Maybe you are a pessimist, or maybe you have some kind of stake in peak oil being especially bad, and this prevents you from processing data about how increasingly effective solar power really is. I don’t know how to change your mind, **Ralfy**. I’ve laid it all out repeatedly. There have been new advances just in the time we’ve been talking about this (google 3D solar cells). We will just have to agree to disagree, and see what happens. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/353 "2014-08-25T03:40:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > You keep repeating this, but it just isn’t the case. Spain’s solar infrastructure was installed long ago (viewed through the lens of the rapidly-advancing solar industry). And it was mostly installed by BP, The Shittiest Corporation In History. Using Spain as a benchmark is simply inaccurate. Please prove your arguments. That is, show how the installation period and the company involved led to the results given. > [@](#): > > Could be a difference of temperament. Maybe you are a pessimist, or maybe you have some kind of stake in peak oil being especially bad, and this prevents you from processing data about how increasingly effective solar power really is. I don’t know how to change your mind, **Ralfy**. I’ve laid it all out repeatedly. There have been new advances just in the time we’ve been talking about this (google 3D solar cells). We will just have to agree to disagree, and see what happens. The only way you can change my mind is to counter my arguments. Consider my last post on the matter here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17473293&postcount=342](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17473293&postcount=342) The EROI of 30 is based on EBPT across lifetime. Include the efficiency of the electricity grid, and it goes down to 6. Include many other factors, and it goes down to less than 3. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2014, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/354 "2014-08-25T10:12:34Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > The only way you can change my mind is to counter my arguments. Your argument is that a growing economy requires growing energy usage, or rather growing oil usage. Have you addressed how this theory does not fit the real world data? I believe even the USA has stagnating oil consumption. [You are at the same level as in 1998](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption) Denmark is at the same energy usage level as in 1989 or something. Double the economy, same energy usage. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/355 "2014-08-26T02:01:58Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Your argument is that a growing economy requires growing energy usage, or rather growing oil usage. Have you addressed how this theory does not fit the real world data? I believe even the USA has stagnating oil consumption. [You are at the same level as in 1998](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption) Denmark is at the same energy usage level as in 1989 or something. Double the economy, same energy usage. World oil consumption has been growing. See the first chart in this article for details: > **[Peak Oil Demand is Already a Huge Problem](https://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/)** > > We in the United States, the Euro-zone, and Japan are already past peak oil demand. Oil demand has to do with how much oil we can afford. Many of the developed nations are not able to outbid the de… That link was shared several times in earlier messages. See also other links referring to increasing credit, demand destruction in relation to economic crisis, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/356 "2014-08-27T11:48:56Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > World oil consumption has been growing. Why do you reply to my post when you don’t reply to anything I wrote in it? So again: Your argument is that a growing economy requires growing energy usage, or rather growing oil usage. Have you addressed how this theory does not fit the real world data? I believe even the USA has stagnating oil consumption. You are at the same level as in 1998 Denmark is at the same energy usage level as in 1989 or something. Double the economy, same energy usage. Mature economies having been growing for some time without a growing energy - or oil - consumption. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/357 "2014-08-27T13:20:50Z")
It’s actually longer than that, **Rune**. The US, in 2013, used the same amount of oil as we used in [1978](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS2&f=A)! Since 1978, the population has grown by 90 million people, real (inflation adjusted) GDP has grown from [$6.4 trillion to $16 trillion](http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table)… really, I could just go on. **Ralfy’s** point is that the global oil consumption is growing, but he discounts the fact that oil production is growing, the shale revolution, more, because of eROI. However, eROI (like many statistics) isn’t something that is set in stone - it’s a variable term that can be affected by thousands of inputs. For example, the eROI needed to drive a 1972 Dodge Charger is far greater than the eROI needed to drive a 2014 Prius, which is greater than the eROI needed to drive a Nissan Leaf (electric car). The eROI needed for my Dad’s lawn mower was much greater than the eROI needed to power my small electric mower. To say that “Civilization needs X eROI in order to sustain itself” implies that civilization is frozen in our inputs and outputs… which is hardly the case. I think that **Ralfy** brings many interesting points to the discussion and has given us (well, me at least) a lot to think about. However, the fixation on eROI and the reliance on citing the [same source repeatedly](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786), one that primarily cites himself in this link, doesn’t help his case. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/358 "2014-08-27T14:15:20Z")
Ok, ralfy. First, look at the [trend in the cost of solar power](http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/6/Solar-Pricing-1985-to-present.jpg). It is declining very rapidly- systems installed even a few years ago are quite a bit more expensive than today’s, and the trend continues. Look at the[progress of solar technology](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/efficiency_chart1.jpg). The technology is advancing very rapidly. Systems produced even a few years ago are already inferior to today’s. See [here](http://i.imgur.com/7hcXRmV.jpg) for a chart of projected grid parity dates around the world. Grid parity is when unsubsidized solar costs equal or less to fossil alternatives. I think it is safe to say that reaching grid parity means we get the same or better return on investment from solar as from fossil fuels. Look [what UBS has to say](http://forum.thecontrarianinvestor.com/index.php?threads/long-term-discussion-of-solar-energy.30/page-12#post-16988). > [@](#): > > In this decentralised electricity world, the key utilities’ assets will be smart distribution networks, end customer relationships and small-scale backup units. Utilities should be able to extract more value in (highly competitive) supply activities, as customer needs will be more complex. Large-scale power generation, however, will be the dinosaur of the future energy system: Too big, too inflexible, not even relevant for backup power in the long run. Here is a brief article about [why BP solar failed.](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/426461/why-bp-solar-failed/) They get put in the same category as Solyndra- they just weren’t that good at it. BP’s solar panels were all of 13.5% efficient. Even thin film panels are better than that today. Factories are being built right now that will mass-produce 25% efficient cells. Also, Spain uses concentrated some concentrated solar. The advantage is that they produce power 24hrs a day. However, they are not as cost-effective. Spain’s solar system isn’t as advanced as what can be produced now, and in combination with the economic crash, people are unhappy with it and see it as a burden. The present and future of solar are different though. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/359 "2014-08-28T05:02:06Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Ok, ralfy. First, look at the [trend in the cost of solar power](http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/6/Solar-Pricing-1985-to-present.jpg). It is declining very rapidly- systems installed even a few years ago are quite a bit more expensive than today’s, and the trend continues. > > Look at the[progress of solar technology](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/efficiency_chart1.jpg). The technology is advancing very rapidly. Systems produced even a few years ago are already inferior to today’s. > > See [here](http://i.imgur.com/7hcXRmV.jpg) for a chart of projected grid parity dates around the world. Grid parity is when unsubsidized solar costs equal or less to fossil alternatives. I think it is safe to say that reaching grid parity means we get the same or better return on investment from solar as from fossil fuels. > > Look [what UBS has to say](http://forum.thecontrarianinvestor.com/index.php?threads/long-term-discussion-of-solar-energy.30/page-12#post-16988). > Here is a brief article about [why BP solar failed.](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/426461/why-bp-solar-failed/) They get put in the same category as Solyndra- they just weren’t that good at it. BP’s solar panels were all of 13.5% efficient. Even thin film panels are better than that today. Factories are being built right now that will mass-produce 25% efficient cells. > > Also, Spain uses concentrated some concentrated solar. The advantage is that they produce power 24hrs a day. However, they are not as cost-effective. Spain’s solar system isn’t as advanced as what can be produced now, and in combination with the economic crash, people are unhappy with it and see it as a burden. The present and future of solar are different though. There is a reference to technology being cheaper and more efficient in the same review, plus many factors to consider. I don’t disagree with the argument that there are new technologies coming into play, but I don’t think this will be enough given the requirements of the global economy. As one recent article points out, we will need the equivalent of 40 Mb/d in new oil production during the next two decades just to maintain economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every five years. To meet the demands of a growing global middle class, we will need even more than that. Recent studies on energy returns are shared here: > **[Home - BraveNewClimate](https://bravenewclimate.com)** > >  Guest Post by Ben Heard. Ben is Director of Adelaide-based advisory firm ThinkClimate Consulting, a Masters graduate of Monash University in Corporate Very likely, combinations of energy sources will help, but we also need to look at energy quantity. More details are found in my previous posts. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075/360 "2014-08-28T05:07:42Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Why do you reply to my post when you don’t reply to anything I wrote in it? So again: > > Your argument is that a growing economy requires growing energy usage, or rather growing oil usage. Have you addressed how this theory does not fit the real world data? I believe even the USA has stagnating oil consumption. You are at the same level as in 1998 Denmark is at the same energy usage level as in 1989 or something. Double the economy, same energy usage. > > Mature economies having been growing for some time without a growing energy - or oil - consumption. Real world data shows that world oil consumption has been growing. You are only referring to the U.S. More details are found in the link shared in my previous post. Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan are dropping because of economic problems, but their GDPs are growing because of increased credit creation (e.g., bailouts). The implication is that although one can make an economy grow by simply creating more credit, the real economy can only grow if more goods and produced and sold, and that requires increasing use of energy and material resources. The connections between oil use and economic growth are discussed here: > **[How much oil growth do we need to support world GDP growth?](https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-to-support-world-gdp-growth/)** > > A few days ago, I showed the close relationship between growth in world oil consumption and growth in world GDP. In this post, I will extend that analysis by building a model that shows how much of… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-the-oil-era-the-fall-of-civilization-or-just-a-bump-in-the-road/184075.md?page=19)