>$20,000, or two and a half times the U.S. per capita product in 1976. Barry
>Commoner estimates that "in round numbers, some 350 billion barrels of
>domestic crude oil are available to us. At the present rate of oil
>consumption (slightly more than 6 billion barrels per year), this amount
>would take care of total national demand for oil without any imports for a
>period of 50 - 60 years." Herman Kahn makes a similar estimate for the
>entire world supply of oil and gas.
This information is a good example of propaganda because
it asks its own non-questions, and then proceeds to
answer them.
Does Commoner expect us believe that oil will be consumed
"at present rates of consumption" for "50 - 60 years" and
then suddenly stop as the last drop is squeezed from the
ground?
The reason he uses "present rates of consumption" is
because once one starts doing the arithmetic on
exponential growth, the numbers become astounding!
In fact, oil consumption expected to increase at about 2
percent per year. [WRI, 1996] At 2% per year growth,
the RATE of oil consumption will DOUBLE in about 35 years.
AND THE AMOUNT OF OIL CONSUMED IN THE NEXT 35 YEARS WOULD BE
MORE THAN ALL THE OIL CONSUMED IN ALL OF HISTORY THUS FAR!!!!
Does anyone actually believe we have this much oil left --
and can pump it out that fast?
[ For a good discussion of exponential growth, see:
http://dieoff.org/page74.htm ]
>years it would be both technologically and economically feasible to replace
>non recoverable fossil fuels with alternative energy sources: nuclear
>fission (with all its attendant dangers), solar energy in many forms,
>geothermal energy and eventually, perhaps, nuclear fusion.
REAL WORLD BOTTOM LINE
All energy production is limited by the "energy cost" of
production. In other words, if it takes more energy to
find and recover a barrel of oil than the amount of energy
recovered, then it makes no sense to recover that oil
energy -- no matter how high the money price of energy.
Neither engineers nor economists can repeal the laws of
thermodynamics:
"Beyond 2005, the energy required to find and extract a
barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the
barrel". [ http://dieoff.org/page116.htm ]
Also see: http://dieoff.org/fgate2.gif
However, there may be energy "subsidies" between different
fields or between different types of energy (just as there
are billions of dollars of money subsidies). For example,
we now use ethanol for energy even though it's use results
in a net energy loss:
"The total input to produce 1000 liters of ethanol is
about 9.9 million kcal, nearly double the yield in
ethanol of 5.1 million kcal." [ p. 239, FOOD ENERGY
AND SOCIETY, Pimentel; University Press of Colorado,
1996 ]
In other words, the use of ethanol for energy requires
an energy subsidy that we can only afford while we
have plenty of energy. When the energy crunch comes,
ethanol will have to go.
Energy prices are set to skyrocket because global
oil production is set to peak.
[ http://dieoff.org/page122.htm ]
As energy prices increase, we become less "energy
efficient" with respect to imported oil. That is,
we will have to burn MORE energy in order to make
MORE goods and services (to make more money) to
buy a barrel of oil. It's a positive feedback loop.
But there is an thermodynamic limit on how much we
CAN pay for imported oil!
If as a country, we must spend two barrels of oil to
produce enough goods to buy one barrel of oil, it
is impossible for us to pay our overhead -- it is
impossible for us to continue. At that point, our
economic machine is "out of gas".
Where could we possibly get oil?
It's not even certain that we could SEIZE energy
by military force. I could only succeed if it
burns less energy than the amount recovered.
Remember the burning oil wells in Kuwait?
A long, large military operation could burn more
energy than it gained.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY?
If the profit ratio for domestic coal continues
to fall at the same rate as it has, it will
thermodynamically "unrecoverable" by 2040.
[p. 67, BEYOND OIL]
Also see: http://dieoff.org/fgate7.gif
Again, as energy prices increase, we must burn
MORE energy to make MORE goods and services to
buy MORE energy -- a positive feedback loop that
can only end total economic collapse -- and
perhaps war.
Natural gas is likely to "peak" shortly after oil.
[p. 56, BEYOND OIL. I have more stuff on natural
gas if anyone is interested.]
You can't run industry on wind power.
Conventional nukes are no good because of the
SHORTAGE OF URANIUM. We would have to rely on
the new "fast-breeders":
"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's
crust, at about 4 parts per million on average.
Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear
power -- even the five-fold expansion widely
canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile
Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl
-- would out-run readily accessible supplies
These supplies include both deposits previously
exploited but mothballed due to lack of current
demand, and known high concentration pockets
that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore,
the expansion of nuclear would highlight the
need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue
fusion technology." [p. 90, Energy for Tomorrow's
World; St. Martin's Press, 1993]
BUT THE "FAST-BREEDERS" ARE DEAD:
-------
"TOKYO (October 1, 1997 11:39 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -
Japan's fast-breeder reactor program, a cornerstone of the
nation's energy program in the 21st century, has suffered a
major setback, Japanese nuclear policy-makers said Wednesday.
"A subgroup of the powerful Atomic Energy Commission said in a
draft policy report it was too early to draw up a timetable for
the program to move beyond the experimental stage."
[snip]
"In June, France said it would scrap the highly controversial
Superphenix nuclear fast-breeder, saying it was too costly
and of doubtful value.
"Britain, the United States and Germany have already abandoned
their programs for similar reasons."
-------
FUSION is nothing more than science fiction! If they
can't even get the "fast-breeders" to work, how the
hell do they expect to make fusion commercial?
It's hard to tell the economists that there is no Santa
Claus -- that the world runs on energy instead of money.
But someone has to tell them: there is no way out --
physical laws DEMAND that Christmas must end -- and soon ...
Jay -- http://dieoff.org
