We have to get on the same page on this issue. Peak oil did not already take place. Global oil output continues to rise. Cite. Cite.
I’m sure that ralfy will explain this, but he’s correct.
Various things that are simply not oil are now included in the crude oil production numbers posted above.
Thanks, ChickenLegs. In addition, the article also reveals that for seven years until 2005, the oil industry spent $1.5 trillion to find new oil. For seven years after 2005, it spent more than $3 trillion.
:eek:
Do you realize the negative implications? (relax, that’s just a little 10-year-old conversation joke)
I used to be rather concerned about peak oil. Then I came to believe there were vast oil resources at a (reasonably) higher price, even if they aren’t especially environmentally friendly oil resources. Now you’re saying that isn’t the case.
The article is a little dodgy on calling ‘peak oil’- 2012 is at the same level as 2005, though that does make production flat at best. There are issues around the world besides supply that impact production- Nigerians don’t all seem to accept the exporting of their oil and fight to screw it up. Libya isn’t stable. Venezuela has been in better shape. Iraq got the shit bombed out of it. etc.
I’ll wait for our resident panel of experts to chime in. Plenty of oil guys and business guys out there. Maybe blake will come back with his opinion of that Christian Science Monitor piece.
Essentially, this chart, reposted a number of times, shows the crude oil production at selected times over the past year. As it notes, it includes Lease Condensate but does not include biofuels or NG liquids.
Total American lease condensate production in 2012? 274 million barrels, approximately 10% of crude oil production. Given that LC has always been part of crude oil computations, not too sure why the CSM article makes a big deal out of them or why their inclusion is evidence of declining production.
Anyway, again, take away LGL and biofuels and the EIA still shows crude oil production increasing.
I trust no one here disputes that assumption, that global oil production must eventually reach an all-time peak?
From the same page:
I think tight oil was included. See the seventh chart here:
using data from EIA Outlook 2013.
Also, page 12 of
http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_04202013.pdf
Notice, too, that domestic production is expected to peak in only a few years, and even with the best-case scenario will not meet consumption.
Peak oil is not about “vast” resources, as even crude oil reserves are “vast.” And yet U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, global oil production per capita peaked in 1979, two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or gone beyond peak, crude oil production peaked in 2005, and U.S. shale oil production is expected to peak in only a few years.
The tripling of oil prices has led to a global recession which is likely permanent. The price is high to an extent that demand destruction has been taking place for OECD countries, but not high enough such that demand is increasing for the rest of the world.
How much “new” oil will be needed to meet that global demand? According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. If the global middle class continues to grow, we’ll need more.
Indeed, as global oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.
And one should not be surprised that intervention in various countries has to do with peak oil. In fact, that’s very likely the basis of the petro-dollar.
The IEA, which is probably the leading global agency on energy concerns, has already spoken on the matter. See the Outlook 2010 report for details.
The counter-arguments are actually responses to peak oil.
The last point is also notable because in a capitalist system, ingenuity leads to more consumption, not less, as more profits can be made by increasing production using underutilized resources.
Where that is possible. Some things are simply not physically, materially possible. It might well be impossible to substitute for petroleum any other fuel or technology that allows us to continue driving cars around every day at no significantly increased cost or inconvenience.
That’s right. As shown in Hall’s graph, the energy quantity and quality for various sources are low compared to what is needed to support a middle class lifestyle.
ralfy: You need to catch up. Renewables may not have the EROIs you demand, but they are way better than your report from 2008 says, and still improving. I’ll show you cites of renewable EROIs above 15 if you will read them.
Still, there seems to be some new peak oil news: civil war in Iraq poised to take production out of the market.
Please share the information on renewables and expected increase. Energy quantity will also be important.
Ok. Let’s agree that a solar system will be in place for 30 years. There is no real reason why a panel couldn’t be used longer than that- after all, unlike a fracked oil well which loses half its capacity within about a year, the best solar panels still provide ~85% of their original output after 25 years. If it is still pumping juice and hasn’t been hit by a tornado or meteor or something, why would you throw it away? Still, 30 years seems to be the expected lifespan of a panel.
This is important in the context of energy payback time. If the EPBT is one year, then over the lifetime of the panel you get back 30x more energy than you put in, minus degredation losses, plus an indefinite amount if the panel stays in use after 30 years. And look, in some cases anyway, the EPBT of solar panels is 1 year or less- and the cite is a little dated!
Notice the best performer here is the CdTe- those are the thin films that have been claimed to have especially high EROIs. AFAIK this kind of panel degrades faster than the best silicon panels, and so the lifetime payback underperforms a little, but not devastatingly so.
Here is a historical chart of EPBTs of solar panels (charts from here). I suspect the rate of increase will slow logarithmically, but there’s no reason to think improvement in this area isn’t continuing.
For example, see NREL’s Best Research-Cell Efficiencies. You can see the progress in what can be done in a lab has been impressive, and I think we can expect the trend to continue. Many of these developments are so new that they have not had the chance for commercialization yet, so it seems at least the next few iterations of improvements are ‘already in the pipe’.
Solar installations globally amounted to 37GW in 2013, and here is a projection of the cumulative total. They claim it will nearly double in 2.5 years.
Depending on how the far side of the peak oil curve plays out (and when the peak actually happens), solar looks like it could do a lot to replace or exceed the decline in oil output.
Here’s what I gathered:
“Peak Oil Revisited…”
http://www.feasta.org/2014/06/03/peak-oil-revisited/
It contains references to Kopits’ 2014 lecture (very important because it gives a detailed explanation of the current situation, and mentioned many times in previous messages) and Hall’s 2012 EROI presentation (with lots of information on energy returns for oil and gas for various regions).
“Energy returned on energy invested”
with a focus on a 2010 paper on the same matter linked in the entry. Finally,
“Behind the Numbers on Energy Return on Investment”
A 2013 article referring to sources used to determine EROI in another article.
From what I gathered, the energy return for solar is around 6-7. The requirement needed to meet basic needs is around 5. To maintain a middle class lifestyle, which includes EVs, etc., we need 11 or better.
Thus, all sources of energy will be able to meet basic needs in general, but strong coordination between economies will be needed for the transition from fossil fuels to other energy sources. This was explained in detail in the IEA 2010 report, which was also referred to multiple times in previous messages.
What’s the catch? There are several:
We need to look at energy quantity as well, and the requirements of a middle class lifestyle involve energy quantity and quality that are off the scale. For example, the EROI for the U.S. is around 40, and the country has less than 5 pct of the world’s population.
Why the focus on a middle class lifestyle? Because the global economy is capitalist, which means it needs not only ever-increasing energy and material resources to produce more goods and services, it has to do so at ever-decreasing energy costs. That means it needs higher EROI each time to meet increasing energy and resource demand from a growing global middle class.
How does this translate in terms of energy demand? According to the IEA, for the last three decades we’ve seen oil demand go up by 1 to 2 pct per annum to ensure economic growth of around 3-4 pct. This makes sense because the global GDP increase has to grow up around three times higher than population growth.
In order to continue economic growth, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years, and EROI has to be maintained. Data shows, unfortunately, that it has been dropping.
What about a growing global middle class? We will very likely need more than one Saudi Arabia every seven years. One source shared earlier points out that to meet that plus make up for low EROIs for unconventional oil, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every three to four years.
Why the focus on fossil fuels? Because much of our global manufacturing, food production, and delivery systems are geared towards the use of oil, and various components used throughout the process involve petrochemicals. These include many components needed for photovoltaic systems.
Thus, we need high EROIs, very high energy quantity, something that can provide petrochemicals or ensure additional EROI and energy quantity to obtain substitutes, etc., to maintain the global economy. Otherwise, we will have to cut back on energy and resource consumption and use different sources of energy to meet basic needs.
Finally, all of these points were raised in previous messages. Several were raised multiple times.
Total energy consumption has remained flat in Denmark from at least since 1980, while the population and GDP have both increased – GDP almost doubled, and of course energy per GDP decreased – almost halved. And of course the renewable part of the energy mix has gone up markedly, to around 20%. The plan is to be 100% renewable by 2050 – which is quite feasible even with current technology.
How does that mesh with your statement that a middle class lifestyle requires a constant or growing energy need?
I know that. I thought some newer information might persuade you that the EROIs of solar (I haven’t even talked about wind) are higher than you claim.
I don’t feel like you’ve directly addressed what I am saying at all. If the EPBT of a solar system is 1 year or less, and it lasts for 30 years, isn’t EROI approaching 30?
You’ve said over and over that we need an energy supply with an EROI of 30 or more. I’m showing you that we have that. What about this? You are saying that solar only provides an EROI of 6 or 7, without a word of what is wrong with what I am presenting to you.
Now you’re saying we need an EROI of 11 or better top maintain a middle class lifestyle. According to my sources, we have way better than that with solar right now. So, we may have problems, but we’re not doomed. At the very least, if oil output plummets as renewables output soars, renewables can displace natural gas in electricity generation for use in transportation instead, if mass ev production proves too hard.
What does it mean, ‘the EROI for the U.S. is around 40’?
From what I know, EROI is the ratio of energy acquired to energy expended. (See the wiki entry.) Some details on the term are given in Part 2:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810
The latest data put together by Inman in the SciAm article puts solar at 6-7.
I think the EROI for solar consists of energy acquired by using the solar system across its lifetime compared to the energy expended in the process of making the system (e.g., obtaining the crystals, building the components such as the inverter, etc.).
The EROI for maintaining a middle class lifestyle is mentioned here:
“Will Fossil Fuels Be Able to Maintain Economic Growth? A Q&A with Charles Hall”
Notice, though, that it refers to fulfillment of basic needs, which is the least requirement for a middle class lifestyle. To get more things, such as being able to consume a lot of oil, build well-maintained roads, ship and use thousands of goods (including construction materials, electronic gadgets, game consoles, fashion accessories, processed food, medicine, etc.) across thousands of miles through JIT systems (e.g., cargo ships, cargo trucks, etc.), then energy returns have to be a lot higher.
The most prominent example is the U.S.
I think it’s because the U.S. requires even more oil per capita than most countries. For example, it has less than 5 pct of the world’s population but has to consume up to a quarter of world oil production.
Part of that energy is needed to power up around 200 million passenger cars, or around a fifth of total cars worldwide.
In addition, food has to travel across thousands of miles to arrive at dinner tables, and large quantities of fresh water are needed to produce grains, etc.
Similar phenomena take place in other industrialized countries, although energy needs might be lower or higher depending on local food availability, etc.
In order to maintain the status quo in the long term (i.e., only around 15 pct of the world’s population are part of the middle class and have high energy return needs, i.e., more than 11 and up to 40) then we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years to maintain economic growth.
This point is important because the global economy in which oil and other resources are used is capitalist. That means it requires continuous growth, which means more goods produced and consumed (which means more oil and material resources needed) to meet an expanding market (i.e., a growing global middle class) so that the middle class can earn more profits or higher returns on investment.
In order to meet a growing global middle class (i.e., up to 50 pct of the world’s population joining the middle class), then we will probably need even more energy, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every 3-4 years.
Finally, in terms of resources overall, we can look at ecological footprint:
In general, middle class living standards as seen in several rich countries will require a biocapacity that is two to four times higher than what the planet can offer.
RAFLY! Look at this quote from your own cite:
April, 2008. His figures for a solar EROI of 6-8 date from 2004. That is ten years ago. Practically the entire solar industry has taken off in just the last ten years. The systems available now, and the still-better ones that will be available over the next several years, are far, far superior to anything available ten years ago. In most cases solar systems are a silicon-based technology, and improve annually in a trend similar to Moore’s Law (though solar efficiency doesn’t improve as aggressively as processing power).
Please dwell on this. When I show you data depicting solar EROIs approaching 30 in the present, information from 2004 is NOT an answer, dammit! :mad:
Please look again at what I posted about solar EORIs.
Now, can the whole world enjoy a middle-class lifestyle like America’s middle class of the 1950s? I seriously doubt it. As population goes up, standards of living will probably go down.
Please check the SciAm article from 2013 in my previous post. Here’s a repost of the link:
It’s 6-7.
EROI is the ratio of of usable energy vs. energy expended to make the system. Here’s a repost of the wiki link:
That is, EROI = usable energy / energy expended.
I don’t understand how EPBT is the same as EROI.
Exactly! The global economy is capitalist, and thus requires continuous economic growth. To do that, we need a growing global middle class, which means higher energy returns and quantity each time.
Keep in mind that the current middle class is counting on that economic growth so that it can get its higher wages and returns on investment.