Yes, this is OFF TOPIC but important. If you prefer not to read about our
world running out of energy, then you may discard this entire message
without reading it.
=======================================================
Please excuse me for copying all of Jim Elwell's recent reply to my message
replying to his. I don't usually do this, but Jim's response to my arguments
are sound and persuasive, even though I still do not accept all his
conclusions. Therefore, at the end of this message, I reprint all of the
preceding correspondance so that those of you who missed it or have
forgotten it can review it. You may want to compare Jim's point of view with
mine.
=======================================================
Jim,
Your economic arguments are good ones that are often overlooked. At the same
time, I argue from the point of view of the exponential growth in our use of
fossil fuels. I think this is a point that is all too frequently overlooked.
Your arguments will affect the results I have predicted, but will not stop
them. A disaster is coming and we're qibbling about whether it will be in
2090 or 2150.
Most projections of how long our supplies of fossil fuels will last are
based on CURRENT RATES OF CONSUMPTION. Jim does not state this but his
figures seem to be consistent with other estimates I have seen which did use
current rates.
That is a fallacy. Historiclly rates of use have always grown, and they
grown exponentially. ("Exponentially" means growing so that in any given
time the rate of use increases by a constant MULTIPLE rather than a constant
amount.) Such deadly growth rates guarantee that supplies will be used up
faster than they can be "discovered". And they definitely will run out in
FAR less time than predicted by assuming constant rates of use.
When growth is exponential, the time for use rates to double is a constant
AND, in each subsequent "doubling time", the amount to be used will be equal
to ALL THE RESOURCES ALREADY USED IN ALL OF HISTORY. It is easy to show
that, in such a scenario, discovering new supplies as large as all that has
been used in all of recorded history will extend the "running out" time only
one doubling period more. We have been growing our energy use of the order
of 5% per year which leads to a doubling time of only14 years!
Even if we project not running out for a couple hundred years (using Jim's
overly optimistic estimate) then discovering "NEW reserves" equal to all the
resource used IN ALL OF PREVIOUS HISTORY would allow us to continue such
extravaent and growing use for ONLY 14 MORE YEARS (at 5% per year increase).
That was the basis for my approximation that discovering more resources
might increase the time we have left from 100 to 105 years (which Jim calls
a "flaw" in my thinking.)
Will the rising cost of the harder-to-get resources cause the use rate to
slow down (as jim suggests)? It hasn't yet; why should it start now?
Will rising costs of these resources result in making more resource
economically possible to extract and use (as he also suggests)? It has done
this but far from enough. The huge new supplies that are being discovered
amount to only a few years or months supply. We need to find SEVERAL TIMES
the total amount used in ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY in order to extend the
runnig-out time by more than a couple years. There's no evidence of such
vast discoveries being made.
Will the rising cost of these resources exert economic forces to promote the
development of other energy sources (as suggested)? It hasn't done much yet;
we need to get busy promoting such development instead of waiting in the
hope that somebody will discover something before the disaster hits.
Jim relies on the hope that economic forces will force us to find more
resources. The calculation can be done to show how long oil would last IF
THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE EARTH WERE ONE HUGE GLOB OF OIL. Even this ridiculous
extreme does not lead to a comforting result. With exponential growth, even
that oil would run out in a couple thousand year. Surely Jim does not think
the whole planet is one big blob of oil!
Will the rising cost of resources cause us to use less and less, eventually
even if not right now? Most assuredly it will. All that means is that we
will feel the pinch sooner (we will be forced to get by on less than our
ever increasing demand would try to use it). Far from being comforted by the
fact that this will cause the supply to last longer ("never run out", as Jim
puts it), I am terrified by the thought that it means we will begin
suffering the hardships even sooner.
The calculations I have done show that, with exponential growth, energy
resources will run out within the lifetimes of our grandchildren. If
economic forces force us to use less, that will simply mean that the
shortages will begin much sooner.
There's no way out. Our energy dependent society will collapse back into the
stone age if something is not done soon to (1) curtail our use of energy (by
curtailing population?), and (2) develop sources of renewable energy (some
of which are not on this planet).
Note that that's not "(1) OR (2)"; it's "(1) AND (2)".
Jim's arguments (reprinted below) are cogent and thought provoking but they
do not convince me that "we'll never run out". It may not matter whether we
run out in metric tons or Olde English tons. It's later than you think!
Regards, Bill Hooper
retired physics professor, Florida, USA
=======================================================
Jim wrote this:
>>>
>>> The world is most assuredly NOT running low on energy. We have more
>>> reserves of every fossil fuel we use today than we did 10, 20 or 50 years
>>> ago.
I (Bill) responded with this:
>>
>> Surely this cannot be true if the word "reserves" refers to supplies of
>> these fossil fuels in the ground. After all, during the past 10, 20 or 50
>> years we have certainly burned up a lot of this fossile fuel. During this
>> time, NO ONE HAS MADE ANY FRESH SUPPLIES, as far as I know.
Jim:
>
> Of course, '"reserves" means "known reserves." Bill's basic point is
> correct, in that no more is being created.
Bill:
> >
>> It is a fact that we are running out, not because we may or may not have
>> more "reserves", but because IT DOESN'T MATTER how much we have in reserves.
>> Quibbling about how much reserves are left is just quibbling about whether
>> we will run out in 100 year or 105 years. I am not comforted by a mere extra
>> few years before human society collapses for lack of sufficient energy.
Jim:
>
> There are two flaws in this thinking: first, that we are talking 105 vs.100
> years, and second that human society will just "collapse" when we run out.
>
> If you study the issue of reserves of fossil fuels, you will find that the
> claims of 30 years or 40 years or 100 years are really bogus. Known
> reserves TODAY are good for several hundred years, presuming nothing other
> than the price of oil will be no more than double the current price. But at
> double it's current price, there are hundreds of years of supply that can
> be economically extracted. Double the current price will certainly affect
> our economy, but hardly to the point of "collapse."
>
> Furthermore, our ability to find and extract reserves is vastly better
> today than it was 100 years ago, and there is no reason to believe it will
> not continue to improve. These factors alone mean that we are hundreds of
> years from running out.
>
> The second flaw is that, in saying that human society will just "collapse"
> one day when we "run out," we are ignoring the way a market economy works.
> As the supply gets tighter, prices go up, which makes (a) alternatives to
> fossil fuels cost effective, and (b) justifies higher costs in finding and
> extracting fossil fuels, (c) justifies greater R&D expenditures for
> alternative power sources (e.g., solar, wind, thermal, tidal and fusion
> sources of power, and fuel cells and batteries for storage).
>
> In fact, the world will NEVER run out of fossil fuel. Either cost-effective
> alternatives will be developed long before we begin to run out, or hundreds
> of years from now fossil fuels will become expensive enough that
> alternatives supplant them.
