Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 10, 2012
Forget Renewables, We Need Cheap Oil – An Interview with Gail Tverberg
What does our world’s energy future look like? Does renewable energy feature as much in the energy production mix as many hope it will? Will natural gas and fracking help reduce our dependence upon oil and how will the world economy and trade fare as supplies of cheap oil continue to dwindle?
In the interview Gail talks about:
• Why natural gas is not the energy savior we were hoping for
• Why renewable energy will not live up to the hype
• Why we shouldn’t write off nuclear energy
• Why oil prices could fall in the future
• Why our energy future looks fairly bleak
• Why the government should be investing less in renewable energy
• Why constant economic growth is not a realistic goal
Gail Tverberg is an independent researcher who examines questions related to oil supply, substitutes, and their impact on the economy. Her background is as a casualty actuary, making financial projections within the insurance industry. She became interested in the question of oil shortages in 2005, and has written and spoken about the expected impact of limited oil supply since then to a variety of audiences: insurance, academic, “peak oil”, and more general audiences. Her work can be found on her website, Our Finite World.
Interview conducted by. James Stafford of Oilprice.com
Oilprice.com: Do you believe that shale gas is the energy savior we have been hoping for and can deliver all that has been promised? Or have we been oversold on its potential?
Gail Tverberg: I am doubtful that shale gas will be the energy savior that we have been hoping for. There are several issues: (a) It is hard for US natural gas prices to rise to the point where shale gas extraction will truly be profitable, because of competition with coal in electricity generation. (b) While natural gas can be used for transportation, it takes time, investment, and guaranteed long-term supply for it really to happen. This will be a long, slow process, if it occurs. (c) People won’t stand for “fracking” next door, if the end result is LNG for Europe or Japan. We have otherwise “stranded” non-shale gas in Alaska that would be a better option to develop and sell abroad.
If shale gas does come into widespread use, it will take many years. The quantity will be helpful, but not huge. Furthermore, it will still be natural gas, rather than the fuel we really need, which is cheap oil.
Oilprice.com: The old dream of US energy independence has been finding its way into the headlines again as a combination of resurgent domestic oil production, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and the shale boom have led many experts to predict that although it is unlikely, it’s no longer the fantasy it once was. What are your thoughts on US energy independence?
Gail Tverberg: I think that the direction in years ahead will be toward reduced trade of all sorts. By definition, every country will become “more independent,” including more “energy independent”. Whether or not current lifestyles are supportable with lower trade is another question.
Oilprice.com: Japan recently made the announcement that they aim to phase out nuclear power by 2040. What is your opinion on this decision and on nuclear energy in general? Can the world live without it?
Gail Tverberg: The decision by Japan is worrisome, because there aren’t many good replacement options available. Japan has volcanoes, so it may have an option to use geothermal as an option. Also, 2040 is far enough away that other options may become available.
Phasing out nuclear in other countries is likely to be difficult. In most countries, this will likely mean “less electricity” or “more coal.” It may also mean higher electricity cost, and lower competitiveness for manufacturers. Germany has already started the process of phasing out nuclear. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
In general, I think we should be taking a closer look at nuclear, because we have so few other low-carbon options. There is considerable dispute about the extent to which radiation from nuclear is a problem. This question needs to be examined more closely. To use nuclear long-term, we need to find ways to do it cheaply and without a huge amount of hot fuel that needs to be kept away from people indefinitely.
Oilprice.com: Renewable energy continues to be a favorite amongst many politicians – yet advances are slow and expensive. Do you see renewables making a meaningful contribution to global energy production? And if so over what time period?
Gail Tverberg: I have a hard time seeing that intermittent renewables (wind and solar photovoltaics) will play a big role in maintaining grid electricity, because of the stress they place on the grid, and the high cost of needed grid upgrades to handle them. Renewables from wood and biomass are hard to scale up, because wood supply is limited and because biomass use tends to compete with food production. Renewables from waste (left over cooking oil, for example) are not something we can count on for the long term, as people stay at home more, and dispose of less waste.
Related Articles: Which Biofuels Hold the Most Promise for the Future – Interview with Jim Lane
All renewables depend heavily on our fossil fuel system. For example, it takes fossil fuels to make new wind turbines and solar panels, to maintain the electrical grid, and to repair roads needed for maintaining the grid system. Biofuels depend on our fossil fuel based agricultural system.
I expect that the contribution renewables make will occur primarily during the next 10 or 20 years, and will decline over time, because of their fossil fuel dependence.
Quite a few individuals living off-grid would like to like to guarantee themselves long-term electricity supply through a few solar panels. This is really a separate application of renewables. It will work as long as the solar-panels work, and there are still the required peripherals (batteries, light bulbs, etc.) available—perhaps 30 years.
Oilprice.com: Are there any renewable energy technologies you are optimistic about and can see breaking away from the pack to help us extend the fossil fuel age?
Gail Tverberg: The technology that is probably best is solar thermal. It works like heating a hot water bottle in the sun. This is especially good for reducing the need to use fossil fuels to heat hot water in warm climates. But even this is not going to do a huge amount to fix our problems, especially if they are primarily financial in nature.
Oilprice.com: Renewable energy innovation has been coming under fire lately, with the Solyndra scandal and now Tesla motors are looking to be in trouble – both of whom were backed by government loan guarantees. Do you believe the government should be investing more or less in renewable energy companies?
Gail Tverberg: Less. I think we should be looking for inexpensive solutions. Anything that is high-priced starts with two strikes against it.
Also, I think if the true picture is considered, the amount of environmental benefits of renewables is very low, or perhaps negative. Their higher cost tends to make countries using them less competitive, sending production to China or other Asian countries where coal is the primary fuel. This may raise world carbon dioxide emissions.
Since 2000, world carbon dioxide emissions have increased far more than would have been expected based on prior patterns. A major cause seems to be the shift in industry to Asian countries, as countries attempted to reduce their own carbon footprint.
Oilprice.com: In a recent article you mentioned that the world economy is currently suffering from high-priced fuel syndrome. Would you be able to let our readers know a little more about this? And also if there is anything that can be done economically to help move beyond this syndrome?
Gail Tverberg: High priced fuel syndrome is primarily (but not entirely) a problem of fuel importers. It has symptoms such as the following:
• Slow economic growth or contraction
• People in discretionary industries laid off from work
• High unemployment rates
• Governments in increasingly poor financial situation
• Declining home and property values
• Rising food prices
Part of the problem seems to occur when fuel prices rise, and people cut back on discretionary spending. The result is layoffs. Fewer people pay taxes, and more collect unemployment benefits, causing financial problems for governments. The other part of the problem seems to be lack of competitiveness with countries (such as China and India) that use a cheaper fuel mix.
While oil is the fuel with the big price-problem in the US, high-priced natural gas contributes to the problem in Europe and Japan. High-priced renewables also contribute to the problem.
To keep costs down, we really need to consider cost first when considering alternatives to oil. Alternatives that need subsidies or mandates are likely to be a problem. Thus, in the US, natural gas right now might “work” as a substitute, but not offshore wind.
Regarding the competitiveness aspect, tariffs on international trade might help, but would reduce world output.
Related Article: Can Syria’s Rebels Overthrow Assad? An Interview with Jellyfish Operations
Oilprice.com: What is your position on peak oil? Have we already reached the peak in oil production? Or do you side with Daniel Yergin in saying we have decades more of production growth?
Gail Tverberg: I think the peak in oil production will be determined based on financial considerations. Such a peak is probably not very far away, because we are already experiencing lower economic growth and the governments of several countries are in dire financial straights.
As the oil price gets too high (or already is too high), governments of oil importing nations will be increasingly stressed by high unemployment and low revenue. Any way of fixing this problem (higher taxes, government layoffs, or reduced programs like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance) is likely to lead to lower disposable income and less “demand” for (that is, ability to pay for) products using oil.
With lower ability to pay for products using oil, the price of oil will drop. Fewer producers will be able to extract oil at this lower price, and the supply of oil will decrease.
Oilprice.com: What is your view on our energy future? Is it as bleak as some commentators point out – or is there a ray of hope for us?
Gail Tverberg: I see the future as fairly bleak. The big issue is the way high oil prices affect the economy, leading to recession, joblessness, and huge government deficits. The issue is really a lack of cheap oil.
This is an issue that can’t be expected to go away, even with new (high priced) oil supply in the US, or with the possibility of more natural gas supply. We are right now experiencing adverse financial impacts from high oil prices, but these impacts are being disguised by artificially low interest rates and huge amounts of deficit spending.
I find it hard to see much of a ray of hope for avoiding some kind of discontinuity, because the problem seems to be already at hand. For example, I see Europe’s current financial problems and the US’s fiscal cliff as being a direct result of lower energy affordability, especially oil, in recent years.
Oilprice.com: We recently published a news piece on a broker who in a drunken stupor managed to move the oil markets. What do you believe moves oil prices – is it supply and demand or energy market traders – or a bit of both?
Gail Tverberg: I think that over the long run it is mostly supply and demand that moves prices. (Of course, demand has to be read as “affordability”. People who are paying higher taxes can afford less oil products, so “demand” less.)
There may be some short-term impact of energy market traders, but it is likely quite small as a percentage of the total.
Oilprice.com: If oil prices continue to rise do you see Americans changing their driving and energy consumption habits?
Gail Tverberg: I think some changes will take place, but they will not be as fast many would like. New car buyers are likely to be unwilling to pay large upfront costs for fuel-saving features, because they may not own the car for very long. Getting their money’s worth will depend on getting a high resale price for the car.
People in poor financial condition are more likely to make big changes. People who lose their jobs may sell their cars, and share with others. Teenagers who don’t get jobs will not buy a car. People with low wages and long commutes will look for people to share rides with.
Oilprice.com: A short while ago Forbes ran a piece on Thorium as possibly being the biggest energy breakthrough since fire and both China and India have announced their intentions to develop thorium reactors. What are your thoughts on thorium as a possible replacement for uranium?
Gail Tverberg: From everything I have heard, it is still a long ways away—at least 15 years. If it would work, it would be great.
Oilprice.com: In another article you have linked energy to employment and recession. Are you suggesting that without growth in energy production the economy will not grow, and employment levels will not rise?
Gail Tverberg: It takes external energy to make anything that we make in today’s economy. It takes energy to operate construction equipment, or to operate a computer, or to manufacture and transport goods. Even making “services” requires energy.
So if we have a lot less energy, today’s jobs are likely to be impacted. It is possible that we can create more half-time (and half-pay) jobs, but the result will still be that the world will be a lot poorer. We can still do jobs that don’t require external energy (such as make a basket out of reeds, or wash clothes in a stream), but our productivity will be much lower than when electricity or oil was available to leverage our production.
Oilprice.com: What is the most pressing matter that will affect the world in your opinion? food shortage, water shortage, energy shortage, climate change, etc?
Gail Tverberg: I think the immediate problem will be financial, but caused by high-priced energy.
The big concern I have is that financial problems will lead to political disruption. The natural tendency of countries with less energy supply is to break into smaller units—for example, the Soviet Union broke up into Russia and its member nations. There is now talk about whether Catalonia can become independent from the rest of Spain, and whether the Euro can hold together. If breakups become a major pattern, even spreading to the New World, it could make international trade much more difficult than today.
Financial problems could also lead to debt defaults and rapidly shifting currency relationships. These, too, could lead to a reduction in international trade.
Oilprice.com: Economic growth is what the public expects, anything less is treated as a recession, but is constant economic growth a realistic goal? Is it achievable?
Gail Tverberg: Constant economic growth is not a realistic goal. We live in a finite world. This is obvious, if a person stops to think about it. There are only a finite number of atoms in the earth. There are interrelated biological systems on earth, and humans are one part. Humans cannot become too numerous without destroying the ecosystems that we depend on.
In a finite world, it is clear that eventually extraction will become more expensive. When we first started extracting fossil fuels, we started with what was easiest (and cheapest) to obtain. As we move to more difficult locations, such as deep under water, or the Arctic, the cost becomes more expensive. It is these high costs that seem to be disturbing economies now.
It appears to me that we are now hitting some version of “Limits to Growth”. Most economists haven’t figured out the connection between the economy and the natural world, so are oblivious to our current predicament.
Oilprice.com: If the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is ever actually made, what do you believe will be the effect on GDP?
Gail Tverberg: I don’t see renewable energy as being sustainable on its own. If it were, we might expect a GDP level of perhaps 10% or 15% of today’s GDP.
Oilprice.com: Other than a severe reduction in the global population what solutions are available to humanity as it reaches the limits of the planet?
Gail Tverberg: Unfortunately, solutions seem few and far between. Our biggest problem seems to be a lack of time to fix a financial problem that seems very close at hand.
A partial solution for some people may be a reduced standard of living combined with local agriculture.
Regardless of what happens, we do have quite a lot of “stuff” that humans have made that will cushion any down slope—roads, houses, clothing, and tools, for example. Many people would like a solar panel or two for their long-term use. We also have knowledge that we did not have on the upslope.
The past 10,000 years for humans has been real miracle, first with the discovery of agriculture, and later with the discovery of fossil fuels. If there is a Guiding Hand behind what is happening, there may be other miracles in store, as well.
Oilprice.com: In your opinion, who will make the better president in terms of energy policies and saving the economy, at the upcoming elections?
Gail Tverberg: The last presidential candidate that I had real enthusiasm for was Ross Perot in 1996. He would have put the United States (and the world) on a much more of an isolationist path. In retrospect, this is the one thing that would have helped put off the predicament we are in today, because it would have slowed world economic growth, and with it the extraction of resources. World population would probably be lower now, too.
In this election, I would probably slightly favor Romney, because he seems to have some grasp of the issues we are up against. As I look at the numbers, it is absolutely essential that we start cutting programs, if we are to balance the budget. As bad as fossil fuels may be, they provide our jobs, our food, light, and heat so we need to continue to extract them. We don’t seem to have very good alternatives at this time. Even what we consider renewables depend upon fossil fuels.
In the next four years, I expect we will find ourselves doing a U-turn on economic growth. I don’t think either candidate (or for that matter, any leader) will be able to handle this well. Ideally, the new leader should be looking at the issue of how to deal with a low-energy future. Do we move to local agriculture, and if so, how? If rationing is done, how should it be done? If there are not enough jobs for everyone, should we go to more part-time jobs?
Romney has been accused of flip-flopping, but in some ways, with such big changes coming, I think that what we need is someone who is willing to change his views with changing circumstances. We seem to be headed for truly uncharted territory.
Oilprice.com: Gail thank you for taking the time to speak with us. If you are interested in learning more about Gail and her work please do take a moment and visit: Our Finite World
17 Comments on "Forget Renewables, We Need Cheap Oil – An Interview with Gail Tverberg"
BillT on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 3:53 am
“… the price of oil will drop. Fewer producers will be able to extract oil at this lower price, and the supply of oil will decrease….” Take that frakers!
“… I don’t see renewable energy as being sustainable on its own. If it were, we might expect a GDP level of perhaps 10% or 15% of today’s GDP. …” Bingo! I agree! That puts the US in the 3rd world.
“… In the next four years, I expect we will find ourselves doing a U-turn on economic growth….” In other words, contraction and sliding toward a 3rd world for the West.
Other than dancing around some issues and showing a Republican bent, the article was good.
deedl on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 7:10 am
She says “All renewables depend heavily on our fossil fuel system. For example, it takes fossil fuels to make new wind turbines and solar panels, to maintain the electrical grid, and to repair roads needed for maintaining the grid system.” This is the classical problem of induction. Just beacuse right now fossil fuels are involved in those processes it does not mean, that they are necessary for those processes.
For example roads can be build without fossil fuels, as mankind did for millenia before the industrial revolution. Besides that it doesn’t take a highway to build and maintain a windturbine. A gravel road is enough, as ha been proven a thousand times already.
Steel can be produced from ore without coal via electrolysis, as it is done for aluminum for a century now. Steel from scrap metal is already produced in an arc furnace, which runs on electricity. Steel can also be produced by intermittend eletricity supply, when producing at times when there is wind and sun. At those times elecricity will be cheap enough to run the plant without losses (in Germany industrie sometimes even gets money when using excess wind and sun energy). A steel plant with changable intermittend demand can actually be used to stabilize the grid, as it is already done with power-to-gas-plants, which make hydrogen from electricity. So it’s a win-win, because the steel maker gets cheap energy and the grid is stable.
There have been industrial societies before oil, and there will be industrial societies after the oil. There are already studies showing that germany will save in the longterm billions every year on energy because renewables are in the longterm cheaper, its just the big upfront investment right now that she has to pay. There are several European countries, such as Germany and Denmark, whose renewables share in electricity is well over 20%, and thanks to electrified rails in and between cities, transport without oil is possible (in dresden the VW-Factory uses the tram system to get their supplies from the railwaystation to the factory).
Maybe Gail watched to many end of the world movies, but sorry Gail, apocalypse is postphoned. The post oil industrial society will run on renewables. Yes there will be changes, there will be less cars and less international transport, but there will be an industrial society.
Arthur on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 9:17 am
The Romans had magnificent buildings and roads, the had high rise buildings of five stories albeit without elevators.lol… all without fissil fuel. European nations in the 17th century had global empires, based on wind power alone. Even ASPO acknowledges that in 2040 half of the 2010 max production will still be available. That is more than enough to set up hundreds of thousands of steel towers for 5-8MW wind turbines, made from the metal of the cars presently on the road… yes your car.lol These towers can exist for centuries, think Eiffeltower.
And we can always produce biofuel to produce steel, if necessary, not for hundreds of millions of cars, but for maintaining a new renewable energy base, yes.
BillT on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 10:59 am
Hahaha…more dreamers. You assume that there are 7 billion people out there ready to adapt old cars to wind mills. And that oil will be pumped until it is gone. Neither one is realistic. Most Americans cannot fix a light switch or hang a door … lol.
Roads from what? How? Who? The Us has over 1 million miles of paved roads. They will all be gone within 20-25 years without constant maintenance. If you plan to keep them usable, that means you personally have ~ 500 feet of road to maintain. Where will you get the materials to maintain it? How will you maintain it? Gravel is what will be there in 2050.
Steel from ores without coal? Yes, it can be done, but you obviously have no idea how much electric it takes to make a ton of steel. I do. It takes the electrical energy of a town of 25,000 people 2 hours just to melt 6 tons of existing metals down to where they can be poured to make something new. That does NOT count the energy to make the source metals in the first place, or to mine them or any other part of the process. Dream on if you think metals will come from electric only. Even junk.
Industrial societies before oil? Yes, for the 100 or so years prior there was some industry. Think England in the 1800s. But, there was none before that.
We consume 300,000,000,000+ pounds of steel per year in the world. That’s 40+ pounds per person. Americans consume multiples of that. That is only the steel used. Then there is copper, iron, tin, lead, aluminum, gold, silver, etc. To get that, we mine over 3 billion tons of ores. Now, what percentage of that do you think we can maintain without oil? 5%? 10%? Less?
FarQ3 on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 11:03 am
Arthur & deedl, you’re dreaming of a utopia. What do you think will happen if there’s an oil shortage? Do you think Iraq was invaded just for fun? Do you think that Iran’s problem may just be that they have some oil? There is a lot of oil used in making tyres. Oil is used to make lubricants. The Romans used oils for lubricants and lighting and also fired furnaces with coal. High temperature furnaces are used to make high tensile steel, not with biofuels. Where are machine bearings going to come from? And this is nothing compared to the masses that could well be faced with the choice of killing you or getting a meal. Agriculture/fertilisers/transport of foods are all heavily dependant on fossil fuels and that isn’t going to change any time soon. What was the earths population in biblical times? Sure as hell wasn’t 7 billion.
Arthur on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 12:08 pm
@Bill, “You assume that there are 7 billion people out there ready to adapt old cars to wind mills.”
They will have no choice from the moment on fuel prices will go through the roof or even not available at all after a major war in the Gulf. You and I know that at some point fuel will be gone, making hundreds of millions of cars useless.
“Most Americans cannot fix a light switch or hang a door … lol. ”
The Danes now have 41% of elec from wind and 100% by 2020. Denmark is a very advanced society. Many north-western European nations will follow, albeit with more solar than wind. By 2020 most western Europeans will have privately owned solar panels on their roof covering 100% of its elec needs. Go have a look in Bavaria NOW. In the EU currently there are 45 million homes connected to a smart grid (US now 8 million), that will rise to 240 million in 2020. The rechnology, meters and IT-protocols already exist and are now steadily implemented. This will all be done with currently available fossil fuels from Russia and ME.
“Roads from what? How? Who? The Us has over 1 million miles of paved roads. They will all be gone within 20-25 years without constant maintenance.”
Correct. Let the roads rot away, gravel is fine. Instead make a network of broadband optical fiber cables. Oh wait, that already exist in the EU, everywhere. The cloud is the future of organizing office labour (currently 60% of the workforce) as well as education or commerce (shops in Europe are gradually replaced by e-commerce). The car, aviation, intercontinental shipping will be largely gone, causing huge fossil fuel demand destruction.
“It takes the electrical energy of a town of 25,000 people 2 hours just to melt 6 tons of existing metals down to where they can be poured to make something new.”
We still have enough fossil fuels to set up a new energy base NOW. The Eiffel tower exists for 123 years now. According to a Yale study: “The CETIM’s model suggests that the Eiffel Tower will last for at least two or three hundred more years.” This means that simple steel wind towers can be built for near eternity (3 centuries or more) using what’s left of the oil, coal and gas.
“Industrial societies before oil? Yes, for the 100 or so years prior there was some industry. Think England in the 1800s. But, there was none before that.”
There will be no industrial society in the future as we knew it, indeed, but there will be a society considerably different (as in better) than caveman’s society, or even bonanza society. It could even be advanced in terms of knowledge/information. The liberal, globalist, egalitarian, atheist, materialist, progressive, highly mobile, dynamic, free trade society of plenty, with the US at it’s core, will be gone and will be replaced by a society defined by localism, identitarianism, conservatism (if not archaism), ethnicity, inward looking, static, possibly even religeous.
Arthur on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 12:14 pm
“What was the earths population in biblical times? Sure as hell wasn’t 7 billion.”
I am not suggesting that the transition is not going to be a ‘little rough’ on the edges, even to the effect that billions could perish in the process. I am saying that in 100 years time, when things have stabilized, there could be a reasonble advanced human society, no longer based on fossil fuels.
The difference between us and the Romans is that we have a vast body of knowledge and methods, among them IT-technology with potentially near-zero energy footprint, that provides total information transparancy and as a consequence near zero transaction costs.
To sum it up: kill the car, long live the ipad.
Kenz300 on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 12:35 pm
Quote — ” There are interrelated biological systems on earth, and humans are one part. Humans cannot become too numerous without destroying the ecosystems that we depend on.”
————————
Endless population growth meets finite resources resulting in collapse of the systems humans need for survival.
deedl on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 2:11 pm
@ BillT: Nobody says that there will be an industrial society for 7 billion people. All the little farmers in the third world without electricity will live after the oil as they did before the oil. But the large chunk of industrial societies who adapt now will make the change. Of course they will consume less energy and resources per head, but this will not result in reduction of lifequality.
I don’t know if the US will get the turn quick enough, but europe does. Forget the euro and all its bad news, those are soft structures, they do not matter. Europe has the most advanced energysector in the world. And europe has a culture of social problem solving and of sustainability. While in north america forests are cut down like there is no tomorrow, central europe does tree farming for two centuries now. Whoever grasps the problem in north america moves into the remaing woods, living like the farmers in the third world, while in europe corporations, citizens and governments work together as a society to make the shift.
In two world wars european countries maintained and fed industrial societies on a highly reduced resource base. We know we can do it. And we will.
FarQ3 on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 2:35 pm
Sorry Arthur but your iPad is largely made of plastics of which the feedstock to produce is an oil refinery by-product. I also have less faith in humanity to co-exist and peacefully develop the new technologies required for survival once there is the realisation that if you don’t forcefully grab that oil patch some other country will. China’s reason for building a aircraft carriers “to protect critical oil passages and choke points” They don’t need a carrier group to protect tankers from pirates. I don’t think that nuclear armed countries like India, Pakistan, China will just sit peacefully whilst maybe 2 billion of their combined populations die of hunger
BillT on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 2:47 pm
To all of you who believe that the internet will exist when oil goes need to think about the many billions of KWhs need to power it, the dozens, maybe hundreds of satellites, thousands of towers, and thousands of miles of cables that require maintenance, not to mention the servers, and technicians by the tens of thousands all over the world that have to be fed, paid, etc. How do you do that when the world is reduced to 3rd world levels? THAT is what is coming, even to Norway. Europe is just leading the way to the 4rd world for the rest of the West.
FarQ3 on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 3:20 pm
“All the little farmers in the third world without electricity will live after the oil as they did before the oil” LOL! yeah sure because the millions going hungry in the cities won’t venture outside the city limits looking for food. They also won’t be met with hostility when they beg those little farmers for food AND those little farmers won’t be overcome by the hungry masses as they search farther and farther into the countryside for food and shelter.
Danmark, apparently only about 30% of electricity generated in Denmark is from wind power with a plan to make it 35% by 2020. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/26/wind-energy-denmark) They are connected also to the European grid so their baseload is dependant on others. They won’t fare well at all once the gas gets turned off.
Arthur on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 3:39 pm
Bill, you keep repeating that the internet needs satellites. It does not, you only need cables. The total energy cost of the internet, and that includes the energy necessary to build all these servers and clients, is merely 1% of the total planetary energy consumption, where hundreds of millions are glued to the screen for hours per day, like you and me.lol
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/energy-requirements-of-the-internet/
And most of the consumption goes to desktop clients, which are rapidly being phased out by mobile gadgets. Apple won, Microsoft lost. And there is huge potential to bring even down that tiny amount, as micropressors are made as we speak which consume merely 100 milliWatt, intended for the next generation smart phones and tablets. Old school desktop computers + screen consume 100 Watt, an ipad merely 2-3 Watt. If necessary you can power 2 hours of ipad usage by charging the batteries by cycling 5 minutes on your hometrainer, equiped with a dynamo, in a modest tempo (100 Watt).
“Europe is just leading the way to the 4rd world for the rest of the West.”
Huh? We in Europe have 30-40 million muslims on 500 million Europeans. The US has 130 million non-whites on 180 million Europeans. So who is going first into third world status? Look at these top ten lists of major cities with the highest quality of living: 8 European, 1 Canadian, 1 Australian.
FarQ3: “Sorry Arthur but your iPad is largely made of plastics of which the feedstock to produce is an oil refinery by-product.”
Come on, there will always be oil available for this minuscule amount of durable plastic.
“I don’t think that nuclear armed countries like India, Pakistan, China will just sit peacefully whilst maybe 2 billion of their combined populations die of hunger”
India and Pakistan, what can they do in case of emergency? China is a different story as the brighter minds in the Kremlin and in government circles in Australia will all too well realize. Japan grabbed the Dutch East-Indies in 1941, cornered by the Roosevelt oilemabargo. These days Indonesia is overpopulated, but not Australia… what a treasure, with so many raw materials and so few people. If the US goes, China will take Australia the next day as a ‘Lebensraum’ for it’s endless masses, although they will call it differently.
Arthur on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 3:47 pm
FarQ: “Danmark, apparently only about 30% of electricity generated in Denmark is from wind power with a plan to make it 35% by 2020.”
You are not reading your own link properly. These figures relate to overall energy, not just electricity. Currently Denmark generates 41% of it’s *electricity* from wind. Danish plans are related to the expected decline of supply of fossil fuel in line with predictions of organizations like ASPO. If necessary the energy transition can be greatly accelerated. But they do not as long as they do not have to for economic reasons: write conventional installations off first and give technology time to improve even further. The price erosion for solar panels these days is very impressive.
Nuclear on Wed, 10th Oct 2012 5:58 pm
Some points are right, some are not.
Nuclear power is a must. Chinese were on course to complete many reactors while Japanese are still planning to complete/construct more reactors.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1009/Uncertain-power-a-return-to-nuclear-energy-for-Japan
There is plenty of energy from Renewables as well. No need to fee gloomy.
As the price of oil increased, nearly 60 million vehicles were switched over to run on Bio fuels, Natgas, LPG. Even plugins are increasing rapidly.
There will be transition, although with some pain.
Bor on Thu, 11th Oct 2012 12:39 am
Internet is an extremely expensive technology. It is supported by massive advertisement and maintained directly or indirectly by thousand of enterprises.. If economical activity will come down Internet will come down as well as IT business. Manufacturing of a mobile device requires involvement of hundreds of enterprises working in unison. If economical activity will come down there is going to be no mobile or stationary devices of any kind. No sophisticated equipment of any kind – period.
We will go back to 1800 level at the best or may be even farther back. It will happen but only after billions will die.
Arthur on Thu, 11th Oct 2012 9:13 am
Internet is an extremely cheap medium, totaly mainted by the subscriptions users pay to the internet providers and telecoms. Advertising has nothing to do with keeping the internet going. Advertising comes in to compensate extremely useful free services like google and youtube. Google cannot exist without these revenues, but the underlying internet can exist very well without advertising. The cables are in the ground and will stay there for decades to come, and that’s all what matters. What we will see in the coming years is that ever more people will decide not to buy a car, as it is simply too expensive to maintain. This means that large financial resources will be freed that can easily absorb the price of these ‘gadgets’, regardless how many companies are involved in producing them. Peakoil is now, but peakgas is still ahead of us, as is peakcoal. Unless there will be another war, we will have time to prevent the worst and setup a new energy base in Europe and probably in the US as well, preventing massive die-off at least in these lands.