The Mr. Potato Head Economy
by Jason GodeskyFew renewable energy advocates suggest that any one source can replace all of our current fossil fuel usage. Rather, they suggest that it is a combination of sources working together that will allow us to replace fossil fuels. As a practical consideration, we will surely see many different renewable energy sources employed as fossil fuels become increasingly expensive, but should we expect these sources to allow civilization to survive? Or was Jay Hansen correct in his assessment: “No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels”?
The hope of renewable energy advocates is expressed in their own words:
No one renewable energy source can solve our energy problem, but the fact that wind or solar or hydroelectric each only work in certain circumstances is not an issue. It’s the combination of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other renewable sources that’s powerful.1
However, even among advocates, there is usually a strong recognition that conservation must play a substantial role.
While no single energy source is ready to take the place of fossil fuels, their diminishing availability may be offset by a regimen of conservation and a combination of alternative energy sources. This will not solve the problem, however. As long as population continues to grow, conservation is futile; at the present rate of growth (1.6% per year), even a 25% reduction in resource use would be obliterated in just over eighteen years. And the use of any combination of resources that permits continued population growth can only postpone the day of reckoning.2
If the goal of a combination of alternative energy sources is to preserve civilization, then this defeats the purpose. Civilization must grow; even a cessation of growth, much less a contraction, will cause a self-reinforcing process of collapse. One study suggested that alternative energy sources could replace 70% of fossil fuels in America within 30 years at a cost of $200 billion per year.3 Yet even that takes far too long, and still requires a 30% contraction of civilization as a whole. A 30% contraction cannot simply stop at 30%; once civilization’s anabolic growth curve tips into catabolic collapse, it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle that will only end when a new, stable level of complexity is reached. As argued elsewhere on this site, since we have already eliminated the soil health necessary for any intervening level, that means that our next collapse must lead us to permaculture, hunting and gathering.
As we have seen previously in this series, however, nearly all of the alternatives that have been proposed have real EROEI near 1:1. We should recognize how truly exceptional an energy source is that significantly breaks that trend. Simply from basic physics, we would not expect such sources of energy to be common, and this is certainly borne out in the research into alternative energy possibilities to date. Of course, a combination of such sources is not additive: a system that uses many different energy sources, all with EROEI near 1:1, has an overall EROEI near 1:1. As Jeff Vail reminds us:
EROEI is not just a nifty academic exercise. The outcome of the debate on EROEI—whether for PV panels, ethanol production, nuclear fission—is critically important for the future of our economy and society. Regardless of the exact timeline, it is not seriously disputed that non-renewable energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal—all with high EROEI—are running out. There is a commonplace assumption that we will create alternatives to replace them, but at present these alternatives—from PV to ethanol—are all being produced with the very fossil fuels that are disappearing. When they are effectively gone, only energy sources with an EROEI of greater than 1:1 will be viable—and even then, our economy, with its demand for constant growth, cannot survive on energy with an EROEI of 2:1 or 5:1. For that reason, it is critical that we more carefully address this EROEI debate today. If alternative, truly renewable sources of energy cannot match—and eventually improve upon—the EROEI of today’s energy sources, then we must conduct a serious reappraisal of the fundamental structure of our society. My analysis suggests that we must do exactly that.4
Another important fact is that a combination of energy sources necessarily lacks the economy of scale that made fossil fuels so useful. One of the key elements to the success of gasoline has been the ease with which any kind of car, truck or other vehicle can roll into a gas station and fill up. A major hurdle that alternative fuel schemes have encountered for vehicles is that if there are many different types of vehicles all using very different types of fuel, it makes it difficult for any vehicle owner to find the specific fueling station that serves his or her specific type of vehicle. There is a bit of a “Catch 22″ here, as well; without fueling stations, few people are motivated to buy a vehicle that uses some alternative fuel, yet without the vehicle sales to support them, few entrepreneurs are willing to invest in building the fueling stations.
An important fact, commonly ignored in discussing alternative energy sources, is that energy sources come in very different forms. Adapting these various forms to various end uses presents many problems. Electricity and gasoline can each do work, but these energy sources present very different problems when it comes to using them in particular applications. This is generally ignored by people who suggest on bumper stickers, for example, that “Solar Is The answer,” or “Go Solar.” Sounds simple. It isn’t.
The conversion of the intermittently available very low-grade solar energy into an energy form which could be used to power the automobile as we use the automobile today is a complex process, and has not yet been satisfactorily solved. In many cases it is not possible to conveniently or easily substitute one energy source for another. Each has its own characteristics which may be useful in some circumstances and a decided problem in another situation. Coal can be used to produce electricity quite easily in a conventional coal-fired electric power plant. But using coal directly to power an airplane, or using the electricity produced by coal to power an airplane does not now, at least, seem possible, and may never be.
Energy from a variety of sources is not universally interchangeable in its applications. The transition from one energy source to another will in many cases be difficult, and may cause major adjustments in lifestyles.5
The end result of this is effectively summed up by James Howard Kunstler:
Contrary to a faction of wishful thinkers, the earth does not have a creamy nougat center of oil. Oil fields do not replenish themselves. Also contrary to the prevailing wish, no combination of alternative fuels will allow us to keep running the interstate highway system, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney World and the other furnishings of what Dick Cheney called our “non-negotiable way of life.”6
This series should not inspire hopelessness. Rather, it is provided as an answer to those who try to distract us from the important questions with false promises that this or that miracle solution will allow our civilization to maintain its status quo without fossil fuels. As Jeff Vail put it, “we must conduct a serious reappraisal of the fundamental structure of our society,” and such false promises are nothing more than distractions from that vital discussion. This does not mean that alternative, renewable energy sources are worthless: tribal cultures may find ways to usefully, effectively, and sustainably incorporate such energy sources into their lives. What it does suggest is that we cannot expect any of these alternatives, or even any combination of them, to save civilization. Civilization, much to the betterment of the planet and, ultimately, to humanity, is nearing its end. We must not be distracted by false promises that we will be able to continue our rampage and slavery; we must instead accept that, whether we like it or not, we will have peace and freedom forced upon us. That is what we must prepare for, and that is the context in which we must evaluate the so-called energy “alternatives.”
Ah…here we go…
Global warming? Well whatever you reckon.
Peak Oil? Fossil fuel?? Sorry man to keep buggin’ you, but..when animals, even big ones-really big ones, like elephants die ,don’t they decompose like the rest of us?
Isn’t it possible that oil is produced under great pressure and temperature near the earth’s core and possibly renewable? Rather than crushed dino-juice!
A theory over a hundred years old!
I totally agree that civilisation in it’s present form is “mince”/sucks and logically must end. Constant growth in a finite environment don’t work.
Problem is WHEN????!!!
And where does the bus/boat leave from?
If Peak ain’t so peak and Global ain’t so warm, then these mofos are going to be civily civilising us till there’s nothing left to civilise!!
And don’t get me started on history or that’ll be another one. Or maybe I just love alternatives.
If you ever go to the isle of Barra and ask for directions, everywhere is either 6 miles that way or 8 miles that way. The point is I think were on the same road heading for the same place, only going in different directions.
Don’t get me wrong-I like a lot of the stuff you write and the referrrences-especially the stories that you can read on line, so I’m looking forward to the Fifth World novel.
I seem to be your differ beggar these days-pleasure, don’t mention it, anytime.
Saludos
Comment by Scot Galego — 12 January 2007 @ 1:22 PM
Most things are, strictly speaking, “renewable.” The question is two-fold: (1) how fast are you using the resource, and (2) how fast doe the resource replenish itself? The amount of fossil fuels that are consumed in one day in the United States takes millions of years to form from decaying organic matter, so obviously we’re using it far faster than it can replenish itself, so even though it is, strictly speaking, “renewable,” nearly any renewable resource can be used in an unsustainable fashion–as we are.
Of course, people keep bringing up the hare-brained “abiotic oil” theory, even though there’s absolutely no evidence for it. You can read my most recent curt dismissal of this pseudoscientific nonsense in the forums, where I provide links to writers who are far more patient with this meritless nonsense than I. It’s actually a very fitting mate for “global warming skepticism”: utter and complete nonsense espoused by those who either (a) have never bothered to investigate the evidence, or (b) desperately don’t want to believe the evidence. Neither position is worthy of any full discussion here unless and until they find the slightest shred of actual evidence to support them. To date, neither has any whatsoever.
So, “if Peak ain’t so peak and Global ain’t so warm” is about as useful a possibility to consider as when the leprechauns will come riding in on unicorns to save the day—with about as much evidence to suggest either one.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 1:50 PM
“So, “if Peak ain’t so peak and Global ain’t so warm” is about as useful a possibility to consider as when the leprechauns will come riding in on unicorns to save the day”
Wait a minute, what are you saying here? I was rather counting on the leprechaun cavalry! Are you telling me they’re not coming?
- roebuck
Comment by roebuck — 12 January 2007 @ 2:01 PM
The Magic 8-ball says, “Unlikely.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 2:03 PM
Just so I’m clear, an EROEI of 2:1, for example, indicates half of the energy source’s yield of energy being spent making it available for our use, correct?
Comment by venuspluto67 — 12 January 2007 @ 2:21 PM
Right. At 1:1, you’re basically giving me a dollar, and I’ll give you a hundred pennies. At 2:1, it takes half the energy you extract just to do the extracting. Which, compared to the 100:1 you once got from petroleum, is pretty damn near 1:1.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 2:50 PM
According to Richard Manning, petroleum is now at 10:1. And that’s at world peak or just-past world peak production!
Comment by venuspluto67 — 12 January 2007 @ 3:00 PM
There’s a difference between peak production and peak efficiency. Efficiency peaks long before production does. Petroleum has dropped, though I believe it’s still at least in the high teens. It’s the continued dropping of EROEI past peak that is the essential problem of peak oil. Once we drop to 1:1, fossil fuels cease to be an energy source, regardless of how much is still left in the ground.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 3:05 PM
When one considers that it might not be possible to make or repair solar panels, micro-hydro, and other forms of alternative energy from electricity alone the EROEI might be even less than 1:1. So much for the theory of robots making solar panels in the desert only to create power to make more robots and solar panels. When compared to that Leprechauns on unicorns just might have a better chance of helping us out.
Comment by SF — 12 January 2007 @ 3:45 PM
If peak is 5 years from now, and depletion is slow, we probably will not need to replace a whopping 70% of fossil fuels in 30 years.
A 3% annual depletion rate will mean supply contraction of only 50% in 23 years. And most of that supply will still be coming to civilized countries, the Third World will be competed out of the market, and left to live without the fossil fuels.
So, we’ll have some living examples of what people without fossil fuels can do, before we have to deal with the problem.
Since the civilized countries are not increasing in population, and underdeveloped countries are more vulnerable to a virulent pandemic which has the potential to decrease population by as much as one third and is somewhat overdue, the is still a good chance that collapse will not happen so quickly, that for many in this generation (let alone in the next decade) it will be the best option to retreat from civilization on this continent.
Comment by _Gi — 12 January 2007 @ 6:06 PM
Ok, you’ve got a lot of references and theory back up for global warming peak oil and I’ll have to cut you a bit of slack, but leprechauns and unicorns!! …
Please man, tell me you don’t seriously NOT believe in them!!!
Careful there, in case it come back to haunt you.
But…back to point.
When? When?? How long have we got before the only ones who can save us or show us the way are the leprechauns on unicorns.
When will the shit hit the fan?
And what would unicorns and leprechauns do?
Comment by Scot Galego — 12 January 2007 @ 6:18 PM
“Only”?? That would still be catastrophic–that means losing half of all of civilization in just 23 years. Besides, early indications suggest it won’t be 3%, but more like 10% - 18%. And again, as we’ve stated here time and again, Peak Oil is not the only problem civilization is facing, nor even necessarily the most pressing.
As much as I believe in “abiotic oil” or global warming skeptics.
About 2012-2015 will be the inflection point. Whether we’ll recognize it at the time or only in retrospect is another question.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 6:24 PM
When? Predicting the future with any specificity is very difficult.
Maybe a time range, since catabolic collapse could occur, or the 1st world countries could maybe follow argentina’s model for awhile?
How about we just pick 2012-2015 as the time period where serious change occurs…I think thats what the unicorn told me?
Comment by bubba — 12 January 2007 @ 6:30 PM
Hey Jason, used the same time frame–as I was typing this up
I hope that “the shit hitting the fan” isn’t the only motivation to make drastic changes in one’s personal life–but i suppose extreme dissonance remains one of the primary forms of human motivation–unfortunately I don’t think many people will be able to wing it…too many people will be trying desperately to hang onto their addiction to modernity.
Comment by bubba — 12 January 2007 @ 6:34 PM
Most people end up moving only from the combination of the carrot and the stick.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 January 2007 @ 6:56 PM