Do you believe in magic?
by Jason GodeskyI certainly do, but the ecology of magic is about balance and give-and-take. Call it the “Law of Equivalent Exchange,” if you like. What I’m talking about here is something different: getting something for nothing, creating things from whole cloth, in violaton of the basic principles of the universe, like the conservation of mass-energy. In many ways, that’s precisely what civilization promises—and what it is doomed to never deliver. Once, we had perpetual motion machines; today, we have “alternative fuels,” billed as alternatives to our fossil fuel consumption, as a way to keep our civilization going on forever.
The reason this promise is impossible to fulfill is very simple: we use far too much energy.
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota”. In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of plants and animals.1
All of our renewable sources of energy are simply solar energy by other means. Direct solar power—whether photovoltaic or passive solar—is an obvious first. Biodiesel and ethanol rely on the energy stored by plants in photosynthesis. Wind power is created by the differential temperatures of different parts of the earth heated by the sun. The only significant exception to this is tidal energy, which is created by the moon’s gravity, but that’s a subject too large to be considered here.
A fixed amount of solar energy reaches the earth each year: 3.5 × 1022 BTUs, specifically. Fossil fuels, too, are solar energy by other means—in this case, solar energy that’s been stored, and not by a terribly efficient means, either.
A BTU of sunlight is fundamentally different than a BTU of fossil fuel. Directly and indirectly it takes about 1,000 kilocal of sunlight to make a kilocalorie of organic matter, about 40,000 to make a kilocalorie of coal, about 170,000 kilocal to make a kilocalorie of electrical power, and 10 million or more to support a typical kilocalorie of human service.2
It takes nearly 98 tons of plant matter, and a very long time, to create a single gallon of gasoline.3 To put all of this into human scale terms recognizable to the typical Western wage slave, the earth has a given monthly “salary” of solar energy, and most of that is spent that month to maintain life on earth. All of our renewable energy sources fall into this category. Some very small amount of it is tucked away into a “savings account” of fossil fuels, which builds up very, very slowly.
Now, if we were to convert all of this into arbitrary dollar amounts to make it understandable for the typical Westerner, we might say that the earth gets $35,000 a year, to support all life on earth. Civilized humans take 40% of that through agriculture, or $14,000, leaving only $21,000 for all other life on the planet (including other humans). In addition, the planet has a savings account with some unknown millions of dollars in it, and civilized humans are pulling from that like mad, living a lifestyle that costs something like $140,000 a year. Obviously, this is living well beyond one’s means; when the savings account runs out, they will need to greatly simplify their life, to at least $35,000 a year, and almost certainly much more than that.
That tells us the role that alternative fuels must play. They can never be the panacea we’ve been promised. They cannot replace our fossil fuel consumption, allowing us to continue on our way.
Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are performing a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet a 380th of our demand for road transport fuel. Beyond that, the trouble begins.4
Alternative fuels can reduce our fossil fuel use, and that can make civilization last a little longer. Whether that’s a good thing or not is a debate for a different time. The EROEI on ethanol is abysmal, and it’s unclear whether it can be significantly raised, because of the fossil fuel inputs of modern agriculture.5 Nuclear power plants using uranium can only give us a maximum of another 50 years; while thorium is a theoretically possibility that could extend that, we’ve yet to develop a reliable thorium reactor, and it’s unclear whether or not it’s even possible.6 All of these will become increasingly important as Peak Oil drives up the price of oil, but none of them can supplant our use of fossil fuels. So, the role of alternative fuels cannot be to save our civilization; at best, they will merely prolong our collapse.
Renewable energy can be an excellent part of a sustainable lifestyle, though. Passive solar and even some more complex energy sources like ethanol could have great potential for small-scale, sustainable rhizome. They have value, but they’re not magic wands that will miraculously make our civilization sustainable. Civilization’s unsustainability is far deeper and more intrinsic than that. You won’t save civilization with “alternative fuels.” “Powerdown,” voluntary simplicity, collapse—whatever form it takes, in some places easy and voluntary, in other places violent and involuntary, human society must leave behind its current way of life, and rediscover its lost heritage of sustainable existence. Call it “sankofa,”7 if you like. In that future, renewable energy has a great deal of potential for improving our lives, but in an unsustainable system, even the most sustainable technologies simply cause more damage.
Great article, very concise in explaining the various fundamentals of the ‘energy crisis’to come.
Apparently many people believe in the magic of unsustainable living/civilization.
Maximizing sustainability in whatever fashion is available to you as an individual or group is a good place to begin. If you have money to burn, many interesting passive solar options. It appears that the media/gov’t is presenting ethanol as the method to “maintain our lifestyles” when oil gets to scarce/expensive. Yeah, right…. Can’t we just start scaling down the way we live, without it being forced upon us? Some people can, the question is will it be you?
“Please let me be a good animal today, and distinguish WANTS from NEEDS.” Barbara Kindsolver
Comment by Bubba — 27 June 2006 @ 12:22 PM
You know, this article reminds me of many American civilizations. Often, the head of the hierarchy would promise good rain for their crops, and in turn that they would treat him as a god. All was well, until the rains didn’t come…
Similarly, all will be well until our “leaders” can no longer supply the fuel for our lifestyles.
I like this article alot because it’s short, sweet, and proves a point. Very well put.
Comment by Billly Fomenter — 27 June 2006 @ 1:36 PM
Thanks for writing this, Jason. I’ve recently been having some discussions with some Peak Oilers, and had had difficulty explaining exactly what was missing in the alternative energy picture.
Comment by Raku — 27 June 2006 @ 2:57 PM
Regarding the EROEI of ethanol - for corn, and depending on how you measure, I’ve typically seen pro-ethanol numbers hovering around 1.3:1 - A break-even at best. Switchgrass, algae and other direct cellulose > calorie ethanols claim theoretical ratios of 6:1 - but not much scaled up yet. Brazil’s doing sugarcane big-time at about 4-5:1, but wiping out rainforest, monocropping, and not counting myriad other unsustainable agricultural externalized costs.
I like the R. Manning reference in Harpers:
Regarding grains
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 27 June 2006 @ 5:37 PM
Against the Grain is full of great stuff like that. Really, really great book. We talked to him about the history of agriculture in episode #3 of the podcast.
On the EROEI, that’s about the numbers they were bandying about on the Oil Drum earlier today, too.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 June 2006 @ 5:41 PM
There is even an energy cost to consider in that used grease.
Comment by Rick Larson — 28 June 2006 @ 10:36 PM
This conference takes a detailed look at the technical advances and commercial potential, including the perspective of leading developers, producers, and investors. What will it take to “fulfill the promise� of cellulosic ethanol?
Comment by JCamasto — 29 June 2006 @ 2:00 AM
The amount of energy we need to function as a monoculture civilization i smuch, much less than we actually use.
When you consider what is wasted, that’s nealry 50 percent right off the top, because monoculture(as opposed to civilization) eats a linear path, consuming only one variable at a time.
When we’re not busy wasting energy, we’re using it for frivolous use. Two-thirds of the toal electricity used is for air conditioning.
AS the monoculture crashes, humans energy consumption will go do jsut because waste and want loops will be severly tightedned if not by government regulation, but because the oil had been used all up.
However, energy efficiency still increases, so does waste, which is a net loss for the environment from whcih we get the energy.
did you know 7 percent of the carbon in the air used to be topsoil?
Monocropping is only now completely indefensible as it is akin to microbiological genocide.
Ending this unintended genocide is the first step.
This seriously reduces energy inputs, increases yields, ends the cat and mouse game of pesticides and resistant species.
Tightening the belt around the perceived need for coolth is the next step.
Building ineffeciency is waaaay down from our ancestors. We are disconnected from a way of life that didn’t have air conditioning, and thus, we have begun to build homes that no longer try to make themselves cool to begin with. Simply reconnecting with old strategies of living roofs, adobe and earth insulation can regulate our tempuratures, meaning less cooling (and heating).
Next, transportation. Not of our bodies, but of our foods. Superinsulated windows now makes it possible for people to grow yummy bananas in the mountains of Colorado. If bananas can be grown in the high rockies, then food production must be moved locally. the amount of energy expended transporting foods based on wants and not means is another huge out of earth’s pocket expense.
Fortunately, we have already reach the point of diminishing returns for most monocropping behavior, making new systems-based behavior more profitable than the old slash-and-burn style of monocropping. having past diminishing returns, on say, food for example, menas the only thing preventing a change in the market is information. there is no longer an opposition in business to doing the “green thing” because the systems approach makes it less expensive.
There are many other small steps that will accumulate into either true efficiencies 9as opposed to the growing problem of general pesticide application), but I believe these are a few of the keystone ingredients.
thank god Pittsburg doesn’t look like that anymore!
Comment by Tony — 29 June 2006 @ 4:22 PM
That’s simply not true. I know the absolute amount of waste we produce is enormous, but as a percentage of the total energy we use, it’s nowhere even close to 50%. It barely even breaks 10%. I know we all grew up hearing about how Native Americans “used every part of the animal,” but the fact of the matter is that when foragers kill an animal, they leave most of it as “waste.” That “waste” feeds the rest of the living community. Why do you think humans struck such a close relationship with dogs? The fact of the matter is, civilization produces much less waste—we’d be much better off if it produced more.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 June 2006 @ 4:47 PM
Hmmm, that is interesting.
Feeding the rest of the living community is an
idea civilization cares nothing about.
Good point.
Comment by Rick Larson — 29 June 2006 @ 7:53 PM
Anyone throwing around the term “coolth” (the opposite of providing the service of delivering “warmth”) is clearly in the throws of Hawkins/Lovins’ Natural Capitalism.
Comment by JCamasto — 29 June 2006 @ 9:12 PM
Well, the waste calculation incorporates materials and processes we prevent from materializing through microbial genocide. it also includes runoff. As well as multiple services levels lost to obtain a monoservice. Like, losing the services provided by a forest for the monoservice of reading a book.
We maybe USE the energy, but becuase of bad thinking, it is ineffect “wasted” when you consider there is a lower-energy alternative to do it. For example, energy use was cut by 90 percent when larger pipes with smaller, dispersed pumps replaced high-pressure small pipes, with large, central pumps. This was at an Interface carpet plant, I believe in Japan…
Same thing with “coolth,” we don’t really need air conditioning with well-designed buildings.
Many, many of the energy used is wasted because the same service can be provided for a lower lifetime cost. Heck, people talk about getting monoculturalists to think abotu seven generations, but if they could only think about their entire lifespan, this waste, or muda could be eliminated.
But it has to come from the upstream. As someone recently demonstrated on the Derrick Jensen discussion list, if the consumer only takes action, and not industry themselves, following even the most stringent of energy saving guildines, will only save 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.
—–
Air conditioning has been a big battle for me at the office, as my supervisor constantly leans up against that damned machine as soon as he walks into the office. And then, the fucker forgets to turn that shit off when he leaves. And he’s a smart-whip, Daily-Show type (even though he’s 45), bretheren preacher who throws the bible out of the window on occasion ( and not jsut to suit his own needs).
I guess using the term waste was a little narrow, because I meant for it to include energy cycles we prevent. This is all just too damned complicated, still, to sum up in a few paragraphs.
——–
Still, when considering how much energy we lose when straw is burned, or when pesticides are applied to the some 500 species now adpated to them, or when transportation brings us food we could have produced ourselves, I would say, intuitively, the figure of waste is at least 50 percent.
To firther expand the pesticide example, we use 650 percent more pesticides since the publication of Silent Spring, and yet, crop losses now stand at 20 percent to insects, when pre-indsutrial use of pesticides hovered around 7-12 percent.
—–
Jim, are you saying that’s a bad thing? The first three chapters weren’t my favorite, but now that I’m almost finished with the book, I’m glad I got past some of the initial hyperbole. I’m glad my use of the word got the attention I was looking for.
Comment by Tony — 29 June 2006 @ 9:35 PM
Waste can be an elusive term to quantify. I agree with Tony’s line of thinking. Additionally, waste is mass/energy for which no reclamation or recycling process is utilized, or for which no process naturally exists.
Perhaps on a per capita basis, Civ could be perceived to produce less waste than H/G. Although Civ arguable wastes human & biological “capital” on a phenomenal scale… so I’m not convinced yet. Jason, have you got a reference I could check out?
Something seems to be missing… Perhaps it’s our human-centric perspective - if humans use it - then it’s not considered “waste” (discounting the needs of the rest of the biosphere to sustainably function). Which leads us to the idea that humans are “gods” that know how the earth’s resources should/can be used…
—–
Tony, of course “coolth” is not good/bad - it’s just a term that I’ve never heard used outside of those authors.
Comment by JCamasto — 29 June 2006 @ 10:36 PM
Oh Jim, I thought you were being smarmy about my picking up on someone elses memes. Must have been projecting on that one
So, when you pull stuff out of your ass, it sometimes gets covered in shit. I wenrt back and looked up the pesticide use/waste, and saw I was totally off above. The facts are:
in 1948, we used 50 million pounds of pesticides.
Around 1999, we were using 1 billion pounds.
Seven percent of crops were lost to insects then.
12 percent now.
total crop losses was 13 percent
now it is 20 percent. (form the farm, nto including spoilage)
So, if that’s not classic diminishing returns, I don’t know what is.
Also, I looked further into the waste concept.
The average american coal-fire electricty plant only converts 36 percent of the energy into electricity, losing 64 percent in heat loss.
Ever notice the steam pilowing out of those smokestacks? It may be pure steam, but it’s also pure wasted coal.
Comment by Tony — 30 June 2006 @ 7:56 AM
“Opportuity cost” gets into some really murky stuff. It’s what leads the RIAA and the MPAA to consider “sharing,” “theft.” Do you really want to start defining waste in terms of opportunity cost?
As far as references, nothing I have on hand, just the synthesis of reading sources long forgotten. But then, I wasn’t using this idea of an opportuity cost as waste, I was just going by the traditional definition of how much of a resource retrieved is used by humans, and how much is left. Hunter-gatherers “wasted” a lot. The entire niche of scavengers subsists off of carnivore waste. Even with that, waste is hard to quantify. If we’re going to define it in terms of opportunity cost, it seems to me that everything has infinite waste, since there will always be a slightly more efficient way of doing things.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 June 2006 @ 8:21 AM
That’s true, there is an almost infinite waste.
But all I’m saying is that we don’t actually need the energy we extract to provide the services we desire.
i think it’s posisble to use 50 percent less resources and still have at least the same level of services. But many of these improvements increase quality of life.
A big thing for me is what about the cost of runoff to fisherman?
basically, the ecnomy is structured so that the suppliers of inputs, be it gasoline or fertilzer, are the only one who experience profits. they are in fact, the top of the pyramid. Moving to biomicry spreads out the gains across the board, it dectralizes a great deal of our economy.
Comment by Tony — 30 June 2006 @ 9:51 AM
Hey –
Tony, I think the fundamental problem with what you are talking about is that if we, as a culture of 6 Billion (or the US, or the EU, whatever) actaully DID what you are talking about on a massive scale it would create a massive decrease in complexity.
Economic Growth would stall/roll back (although great things would be happening, simply reducing energy needs would reduce economic activity OVERALL on a massive scale). If, as Jason/JM Greer suggests that any decrease in complexity/ reduction in growth could set of catabolic collapse (which I am certain of in the sphere of economics at least) then what you suggest becomes its own nemesis…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 30 June 2006 @ 10:46 AM
That’s interesting. Would you say the European Ecnomony is on the berge of the collpase?
I would say that the European Monoculture Economy has already collapsed, but rather than leave hungry people and empty fields and rundown empty buildings in its wake, one economy’s trash became another’s treasure, literally.
This is more than just a lifeboat strategy, it is a part of my strategy to take down civilization .
Comment by Tony — 30 June 2006 @ 12:19 PM
Hey Tony –
The green initiatives currently in place in Europe have developed slowly over many decades, allowing for a slightly slower growth rate rather than a decline.
But with our current energy problems, I don’t think we have enough time to do enough slowly… and the fact that the same energy issues are going to be impacting the whole world simultaneously complicates things even more…
I find myself torn on a lot of the green(generic sense) issues because so many of them are missing the forest for the trees… E-85 for example. So do you try and explain to people the complex, systemic nature of these things to try and encourage them to work on more useful strategies… or will that just discourage them from doing anything? Conversely, do you encourage them, knowing that it is not enough, just because they are at least trying to approach issues in a new way?
I dunno the answer…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 30 June 2006 @ 12:35 PM
E-85 is a good example, standing alongside Brazil’s sugarcane ridiculousness, of making the problem worse, nto better.
But that’s not the same as the 6 billion dollar volume of daily trading on the carbon exchange.
I’m talking not about consumer end changes, but changes at the top of the upstream that are being made because it make good business sense to have the materials you want to extract in the future, rather than rapidly depleting them for the sake of shallow profits.
I believe for every politcal(E-85) and consumer(”organic” foods) fad, there are hundreds of small changes being made at the primary extraction level.
RTFB, I guess.
Comment by Tony — 6 July 2006 @ 10:59 AM
Hey Tony –
Well, you are seeing something completely different from me, then. In the current economic model, there really is no way to encourage upstream changes to ‘ have the materials you want to extract in the future, rather than rapidly depleting them for the sake of shallow profits.’ Reason being, in our current economic model, anyone that follows that premise is in significant danger of getting swallowed up/eliminated before they will be able to take advantage of that long term strategy. Basic Prisoner’s Dilemma stuff.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 July 2006 @ 11:34 AM
Nope, there is plenty of solar, and throw in hydro and ocean wave, there is many thousands of times as much energy as we need.
At the equator, a square meter gets about 1 kW of power, so every square kilometer gets a gigawatt of power. Take the area of a circle with radius of 6325km and you get a very large number of gigawatts. Plenty of energy, even before we get to wave power.
This doesn’t really address that we can’t use all of that power. I know. But its there. And it doesn’t address that people don’t realize how close we are collape. But the power is there.
Comment by mickslam — 19 July 2006 @ 1:04 PM
The whole point of all the evidence and arguments presented above is that there’s not enough solar. Sure, the earth gets a lot of energy from the sun every day, but we also use a lot of energy–a lot more than we get. I don’t think you’ve really done anything to address that. Yes, we get lots of solar energy, but we use even more energy than that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 July 2006 @ 1:22 PM
Janene, re #19,
We shouldn’t lie to those people about things being complex, however you can mention simple ’solutions’. How about walking (bare-foot preferably) to their destination and not worrying about E85?
They will certainly enjoy a locally made E052 (beer!) when they get home - and be fitter physically. I think there are some other posts up on this web-site about foraging and needing to walk 2-3 hours per day anyway…
Comment by Steve Z — 11 February 2007 @ 10:23 PM