I think U.S. consumption began stagnating only after 2008, when at that point consumption reached around 22 Mb/d. The lowest was around 15 Mb/d during the mid-'80s.
According to the same EIA, U.S. shale oil is expected to peak by 2020, much shorter than the time it took for U.S. crude oil production to peak.
Shale production is rising not because of EROI but because of increased money supply needed to deal with lower EROI. That’s why for the oil and gas industry worldwide capital expenditures are rising in exchange for lower new oil production. More details in my earlier post.
Finally, I posted many links regarding EROI, with the latest one referring to several new studies.
US consumption has been stagnating since 1978. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s the data. During the Iraq war years, consumption increased some, but it regressed to the mean since we started getting out of the country.
Regardless, the points still stand - energy efficiencies have allowed the US (and the world) to effectively triple GDP per unit of oil. Oil production hasn’t peaked. Oil is slowly becoming less important to global GDP as renewables take their place. And, most importantly, crude oil is just a part of the overall energy industry and to ignore the rest of the inputs is not reflective of the real world.
Yes, but not because oil consumption in the USA/West Europe has been growing.
Yes, and Western Europe. Which is enough to show that you can grow the economy without growing energy usage, let alone oil consumption. I guess I disagree that all economic growth can be waved away as increased credit creation.
The energy required to produce the same products are lower each year. Each year you can increase the economy the same amount as energy efficiency increases without using more energy.
In addition there’s a very large - and increasing - part of the economy which are not involved in traditional goods production and which requires very little energy. I saw Snapchat is evaluated at 10 billion – which is kinda crazy. Google is worth around 400 billion. They have some big server warehouses which requires a good deal of energy and the Internet itself requires energy to run, but nowhere is it comparable to what energy is required for a comparable sized, for instance, car production company. The goods sold by Snapchat and Google requires a great deal less energy to produce.
To this point, 1) I’m not sure I agree. As others have pointed out, gains in efficiency cancel out the need for increases in energy consumption. 2) I can’t say for sure if renewables can grow quickly enough to replace coal, gas, and oil while also supplying at least some increase in overall energy output. It is a tall order. Estimates for the solar industry are that it will grow to 400GW of installations annually. This is different from energy from oil extraction in which you burn it and then have to go get some more- we’re talking a cumulative increase of 400GW a year.
It is going to be huge, but at the least it is going to take many years to make the transition.
I’ll take a closer look at this after work, but I think these EROI estimates are lowballs or based on dated information. We can observe, right now, grid parity starting to happen in some locations. If it costs the same to generate power from two different sources, it makes sense that they have equivalent EROIs, no?
So, if wind and solar achieve grid parity with coal, we can assume that they have at that point the same EROI as coal. Grid parity is happening now, and is projected to have occurred almost worldwide by 2020. While you can keep repeating that it can’t be done, other people are making it happen, right now.
Regardless, the points still stand - energy efficiencies have allowed the US (and the world) to effectively triple GDP per unit of oil. Oil production hasn’t peaked. Oil is slowly becoming less important to global GDP as renewables take their place. And, most importantly, crude oil is just a part of the overall energy industry and to ignore the rest of the inputs is not reflective of the real world.
[/QUOTE]
The cause is not efficiency but economic problems:
Crude oil production peaked; more details in my previous posts. In addition, global oil production per capita peaked back in 1979. The link is in my earlier messages.
Finally, oil is a main component of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture. Again, more details in my previous posts.
That’s right. Oil consumption is growing for the rest of the world, and that has a very large population. The main driver is a growing global middle class. More details in my previous posts.
Actually, it’s the U.S., EU, and Japan. But oil consumption is growing for the rest of the world. Guess where the highest economic growth rates are now taking place.
Energy requirements are higher because many products come with more features and improvements. In addition, more people worldwide want more of these products, which means additional energy needed for manufacturing and shipping.
Finally, in capitalist systems, efficiency leads to more consumption, not less. That’s why energy consumption worldwide continues to grow:
That’s right, which is why significant components of several economies are related to consumer spending. Guess where the goods are manufactured. Take note of production levels of cars, electronic gadgets, construction materials, etc. worldwide during the last few decades.
Finally, consider a growing global middle class. More details in my previous posts.
Just FYI, I will trust primary citations (the EIA) over secondary citations (boulderreporter.com), so to counter primary citations with secondary citations is a non-starter, even if the secondary source uses data from the primary. Regardless, even the Boulder Reporter cite shows that US oil consumption has not grown lockstep with real GDP growth. A tripling of GDP should equate to a tripling of oil consumption according to most Peak Oil theorists… but that has not been the case.
In a global capitalist economy, efficiency doesn’t cancel an increase in consumption but supports it. That’s why worldwide energy consumption continues to rise at significant rates. More details in my previous post.
This also explains why the IEA and others argue that we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to maintain economic growth. Multiple links in my previous posts explain this.
Absolutely. One study argues that it will take decades. The bad news is that U.S. shale oil is set to peak after only a few years. More important, capital expenditures are rising at considerable rates in exchange for lower oil production increase each time. More details in my previous posts.
I checked the four studies, and they refer to studies or data taken from 2004, 2010, and 2013. The high estimates involve consideration of various factors (such as the cost of storage, usage, etc.). The notable one is the last study, which refers to multiple factors which should be considered.
Finally, we need to look at energy quantity as well. One article about that was linked in my previous posts.
I don’t think we can take this as a maxim. Part of your thesis is that people are going to be impoverished in droves as the effects of Peak Oil kick in. So gains in efficiency would amount to a consolation- hey, you guys are poorer, but at least the products are cheaper. It doesn’t necessarily spell an increase in consumption. It depends- the developing world will certainly increase energy consumption, since in some places they are starting from zero. However, see below.
This is a forward-looking statement, we can’t take it as a maxim either. I’m not saying shale oil is a picture of rainbows and unicorns, but, for instance, the article you posted by Kunstler made almost zero correct predictions. Argentina defaulted, a year later than predicted, but otherwise that guy struck out prediction-wise. If guys like him are where you are getting your predictions, you ought to reconsider.
The glaring flaw in the article you posted which claims “we can never run civilization of of renewables” is that it completely ignores the point of the argument in their favor, namely, that their efficiency/EROI is very, very rapidly improving. Please, keep this in mind and take another look.. The cost of solar is dropping dramatically, while your article assigns it a fixed EROI and projects it forever into the future.
The same applies to batteries- the UBS article I cited, in agreement with scads of other professional sources, predict a greater than 50% decline in the cost of batteries in just the next few years, another point your article ignores. So, UBS claims the costs of these sources will become so low that in the long run fossil-fuel generation will become “obsolete, even for backup.” Your sources say “we can never run civilization on alternative sources of energy.” Both claims can’t be true, and again, the claims you are making appear to be based on ignoring key information.
This thread, btw, is 11 years old. I took the time last April, (about 250 posts ago) to check out how accurate were the predictions made in 2003. In short: Not at all accurate, at least if you were a peak oiler. Some of the things predicted are laughably funny (like “Peak Natural Gas”), some were just plain wrong.
Following are links to two of those posts I wrote with quotes and citations. Check it out if you are interested in a 11-year prediction analysis.
The reason is very obvious: efficiency in business leads to lower costs, higher productivity, or both. In any case, more profit is generated, which is reinvested in the economy, which leads to more production and consumption.
Much of manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture require fossil fuels, especially for petrochemicals. It is theoretically possible to transition globally, but the process will be very difficult. This was explained to very carefully and with multiple sources in previous messages.
As for solar, consider performance studies of real-world systems. For example,
The first point is not a maxim but a study mentioned earlier. It is based on physical realities and lag time.
The second point is not a maxim, either, but a forecast given by the EIA and the IEA. For more details, look at the increasing costs and debt levels of companies involved.
I don’t remember sharing anything by Kunstler. What I presented was a Business Insider article about a study that analyzed the transition process.
The problem is not improvements in solar power but the energy costs of setting up large systems, maintaining them, and distributing electricity. When these are considered, and they should be as we are looking at the use of such panels for real-world systems, then energy returns drop.
The second problem is a growing global middle class. The additional energy needed, as a recent interview puts it, will be the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every five years. Even more will be needed if the energy sources to be used do not provide the equivalent of petrochemicals.
The problem isn’t the cost of batteries in terms of dollars, but the amount of energy needed to produce batteries, and a lot more of it, especially for BRIC and emerging markets.
In terms of ecological footprint vs. biocapacity (explained earlier) we are already at overshoot. And we global middle class is set to grow at significant rates (also explained earlier).
Global crude oil production peaked in 2005 given EIA data. See my previous posts for details.
Caspian oil production is dropping, as shown in the link you shared.
9.832 Mb/d is lower than 9.9 Mb/d.
Peak oil is not about reserves but about production rate. That’s why even with vast reserves we’re still relying on U.S. shale oil to meet additional demand. More details in my previous posts.
Higher auto sales means more demand has to be met. The same goes for a growing global middle class. More details in my previous posts.
As for predictions, I think there were two extremes: oil at $200 a barrel and oil dropping to $30.
I don’t think the first will happen because the global economy will crash first before prices go up. And given increasing capital expenditures, I don’t think the second will take place as well.
Note the current costs of oil production plus rising capex:
“Oil and gas company debt soars to danger levels to cover shortfall in cash”
It depends on what people consume. $500 on a motorscooter vs. $500 spent on video games represent very different outlays of energy and natural resources. There isn’t necessarily a direct relationship between economic growth and energy/resource consumption.
Ha! You talk about ‘real world systems’, but every time you discuss only real world systems in SPAIN. Do you have no response to the fact that BP Solar’s panels are crap compared to what is being produced today? Ok, Suntech Power also installed systems in Spain. Guess what? Their panels were also crap, and both of those companies went out of business, because they sucked at what they did. And these systems were installed years ago, when they cost something like 3x or more what they cost today.
Here’s a challenge if you want to keep up this kind of reasoning: make this argument for a major modern solar project produced by a profitable market leader. For example, prove that the 579 MW Solar Star project in California is a stinker in the same way the projects in Spain are. Warren Buffet’s company bought the thing for ~$2.5 billion- a guy with a reputation for making smart investments. And guess what? Being started in 2013, by the time it is finished it will already be possible to construct another, similar project for significantly less, because the technology is still improving and economies of scale have not fully taken effect. If you try to apply Spain’s projects to the entire solar industry again, I am going to assume you don’t know what you are talking about. Spain’s projects don’t even apply to Germany’s, as the author claims.
It was only a handful of posts up, and a real stinker.
Umm… improvements in solar power are the key issue here. Every year, solar systems generate more power per energy input than the year before, at less cost. The installation and maintenance also becomes more efficient as companies perfect their techniques. Really. That is The Whole Point, and you can’t just handwave it away.
Ok, let’s take this for granted- we need another Saudi Arabia every five years, or the global economy tanks? People start starving? Something assuredly bad.
How much solar power equals a Saudi Arabia of production? Feel free to supply better numbers for my base assumptions if you have a better way to estimate this.
A barrel of oil produces about 19 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel. I’m going to treat those as equivalent (and I’m ignoring jet fuel &etc, we’re just looking for a ballpark comparison), so 29 gallons of gas per barrel. Saudi Arabia produces about 10 million barrels a day, or ~3.65 billion barrels a year. That is equivalent to about 105 billion gallons of gas.
How much electricity is equivalent to a Saudi Arabia? I’m going to take 8kwh to equal one gallon of gas (the Chevy Volt uses 8kw to go about 35 miles, roughly a gallon’s worth). So, a Saudi Arabia is roughly 8x105= 840 billion kwh.
The solar industry is projected to grow to 400GW of production a year. Within 5 years, the period in which we need a new Saudi Arabia, that is 2000GW.
Now, a solar plant is rated in output per hour. 2000GW of solar plants produce power for, what, 6-10 hours per day. Let’s say 7, but I’m not 100% sure what number to use here. 7x2000GWx365 days = 5,110,000 GWh. A gigawatt= 1000 megawatts = 1 million kw. So we’re talking 5,110,000,000,000 kwh. That’s over 5 quadrillion kwh of output. If I didn’t screw it up, looks like the world will have no problem producing a Saudi Arabia’s worth of energy in the time required.
Anyone is free to check my math- I’ve never tried to estimate this before.
Those numbers are a bit weak. The raw energy content of gasoline is around 33KWh, diesel about 11% higher. My mother’s 2000 Prius can get better than 50mpg if driven correctly. In Britain, you can buy a consumer-level diesel automobile that gets in excess of 60mpg.us. Fixed-operation gas and diesel motors (like generators) will almost certainly be more efficient than vehicle motors, and diesel does still get used for home heating, directly converting its stored energy into heat – municipal grid solar electric is far less efficient at home heating.
US energy consumption is not a very good measure of global energy consumption. If the US is using no more fuel than 35 years ago, it is probably partly because the US has outsourced its energy consumption by importing so much stuff (the fuel used to move loaded tankers across the sea, for one, is not counted as US consumption). Please use numbers that reflect global demand.
If a typical ICE engine is 25% efficient at converting fuel energy to momentum, then 25% x 33KWh does get us to right around 8KWh in a gallon of gas. Electric motors are 95%+ efficient; transmission losses aren’t so bad, around 7% IIRC. I’ll grant you generators and home heating usage. We can try to work out a more accurate calculation if you have stats for those things.
Ralfy’s point is that the whole world needs an increase of 1 Saudi Arabia’s worth of production every 5 years to keep up with increasing demand from a growing population and migration into/towards a middle class lifestyle. The 400GW projected solar industry is a worldwide figure.
I’m not an economist, so I can’t claim to have mastered this material, but it might be interesting to introduce this paper on theParadox of Toil to this discussion, namely this bit:
The gist is that, under current conditions at least (near-zero interest rates), lower oil prices are actually harmful, higher ones helpful. Also, apparently being a lazy bastard is patriotic these days. It is a rather interesting theory.
Both items require extensive energy inputs via road networks, JIT systems for parts, gaming consoles and more powerful computers, computer networks for online gaming, etc. And they are just two of thousands of products and services that are part of middle class conveniences.
To meet the needs of a growing global middle class, the equivalent of more than one earth will be needed. To ensure that through renewable energy will require incredible levels of energy returns, including a lot needed for shipping tons of raw materials and goods across long distances, mining for ever-deeper resources, etc.
Feel free to refer to analysis of other real world systems.
Feel free to refer to performance analysis ratios of systems in Germany.
Sorry, I don’t remember referring to Kunstler. I remember referring to Kopits, the EIA, the IEA, and some articles which refer to EIA data.
Actually, the key issue is whether or not solar power can ensure economic growth. Points from the IEA and data correlating world oil consumption and world GDP growth was presented earlier.
Please see the link I gave earlier containing dozens of reports from military organizations, insurance companies, banks, the IEA and others, for details.
Factor in petrochemicals and crude oil needed for large transport systems such as cargo ships, and the use of fossil fuels for manufacturing and food production. In fact, oil (energy and petrochemicals) will still be needed to manufacture, ship, and install solar panels.
As more people worldwide want more solar panels, etc., even more oil and minerals will be needed. On top of that, they will also want conveniences (EVs, electronic gadgets, appliances, construction materials for houses, malls and other places to buy goods, leisurely travel, etc.), and that will require even more energy and material resources, which is in any event part of a global economy that requires continuous growth.
How much oil, minerals, water, etc., will be needed? The current ave. ecological footprint has exceeded biocapacity. Meanwhile, both the global population and middle class continue to grow. Higher energy costs are needed to extract new oil needed to meet that demand, not to mention the demand needed to manufacture more solar panels, etc.
Oil is also needed to extract minerals (especially those that are now becoming increasing difficult to access), process them for the manufacturing process, petrochemicals needed all sorts of plastics, ship tons of both raw materials and goods across long distances, all part of a JIT system that requires extensive oil inputs.
For global demand, data and lots of details were presented earlier.
As I explained several times in my previous posts, the IEA argues that we will need to use renewable and other sources of energy to meet increasing demand and deal with global warming, but there are three requirements that will have to be fulfilled to ensure that. More details in those posts. I also referred to a study that considered the lag time and other requirements needed for a transition to other energy sources.
In addition, I also shared details on increasing capital expenditures, growing debt, etc., in the oil and gas industry, and the industry is critical for the manufacture of components and construction of infrastructure needed for other sources of energy. More details in my previous posts.
Also, I added that multiple factors have to be considered when looking at energy returns in present systems. I don’t see the point in ignoring these factors or that such systems are “old.” As far as I’m concerned, it’s more logical to look at systems that have been operating for several years, especially given a global economy where many countries face lack of infrastructure, funding, etc.
