Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Have We Been Wrong?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 02:33:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'A') human being can do the same amount of work in a year as 28 gallons of gasoline. That's about 37 gallons of ethanol.

Let's see -- current minimum wage in the US is $5.15/hour. At 2080 work hours per year that's $10,712. So, gasoline should be $382.57 per gallon.


So why the difference between your calculated $382.57 and the current ~$3.00 price? Is it that the difference represents the contribution (value) of the gasoline energy slave? As this energy slave disappear because of lower EROEI and post peak depletion, then I would expect the price at the pump to increase to close this gap. Theoretically, when the pump price and the calculated price are equal, we no longer have this oil energy slave making a contribution and we no longer have an incentive to use gasoline, as human energy is equal in value to gasoline energy.

And you calculations put everyone at the standard of living of minimum wage, when in fact the average income in the USA is higher, so if you run the calculation using that average, then the resulting price per gallon is higher than your $382.57

I guess this should tell you what the potential for cost of gasoline at the pump might be as the future arrives. Of course the other energy slaves should be factored in, but your idea is very revealing.

Am I in the ballpark or missing something?
Last edited by gego on Fri 12 Jan 2007, 04:31:45, edited 1 time in total.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 02:44:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')Good thread.

Its the trifecta!!
The decline of: Production, EROEI and their evil step brother Energy density.
....
We will all be doomers when the dust settles on this thread


I wonder how to isolate and predict the effect of the Energy density. In a sense, it looks to me to be a Siamese twin of EROEI because it is included in the ER part of that equation, but it would be perhaps more revealing to calculate this as a separate factor were that possible; any thoughts.

Before you know it someone may even find another sibling, perhaps locked away in the basement.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby DesertBear2 » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 15:47:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'N')ow someone please do the energy slave math again - i like that part the most :)
How many man hours per gallon of gas, barrel of oil etc etc?



Maybe we will go back to using human slaves.

The Alberta tar sands could be dug out with human slave labor. The chopping and transportation of wood for cooking the sands could also be assigned to the slaves.

This would keep the military and hi-tech sectors functioning at the command of the ruling elites.
"In Jerusalem ... the angry face of Yahweh is brooding over the hot rocks which have seen more holy murder, rape and plunder than any other place on earth. Its inhabitants are poisoned by religion."- Arthur Koestler
DesertBear2
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: BlueRidgeVA
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby SchroedingersCat » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 01:43:30

Alright. Here it is. A gallon of gasoline has about 124,000 BTU's. A wooden match has about 1 BTU. A human on a standard western diet uses about 3,500,000 BTU's per year.

What can you do with 2.5 million stick matches?

What can you do with 28 gallons of gasoline?

How about 0.17 tons of coal?

1.026 kWh of electricity?

See what we're facing? The EROEI of all of these (except humans) is dropping. Coal was 20:1 in the late 70's. What is it now?

Imagine a future where humans are the power source because of the EROEI. Treadmills, manual labor, etc.

I recently saw that pre-fossil fuels it took 6 farming families to support one non-farming family (like a teacher). Essential services will rule quite soon.
Civilization is a personal choice.
SchroedingersCat
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The ragged edge
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 02:28:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', '
')
I recently saw that pre-fossil fuels it took 6 farming families to support one non-farming family (like a teacher). Essential services will rule quite soon.


So much for universal education. I sort of suspect the six farming families will choose to support some other services first, like a doctor, maybe. Of course politicians will insist that the six families support them instead. Perhaps there will be a little conflict.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 04:16:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'N')ow someone please do the energy slave math again - i like that part the most :)
How many man hours per gallon of gas, barrel of oil etc etc?



Maybe we will go back to using human slaves.

The Alberta tar sands could be dug out with human slave labor. The chopping and transportation of wood for cooking the sands could also be assigned to the slaves.

This would keep the military and hi-tech sectors functioning at the command of the ruling elites.

Animal domestication and human slavery -- the original cheap energies.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 15:11:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')Animal domestication and human slavery -- the original cheap energies.


Where have all the animals gone? How long would it take to get the population of beasts of burden up the the level needed, and where is the land to come from to raise the feed to keep them energized?

We now get maybe 150 bushels of corn per acre with all the modern techniques, compared to 50 bushles of corn per acre back in the old days. That is only 1/3 of the production, and if you take enough of that or the equivalent in other crops like oats to feed the beasts of burden, you are down to 20% of current production available for you and me. Oh well, I could stand to take off a few pounds after the holidays anyway.

Gee! Haw!
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby LateGreatPlanetEarth » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 20:52:34

we have hugely underestimated the amount of unnecessary driving which is elastic demand, the higher the cost, the more cutback there will be and the productive economy won't be affected.
LateGreatPlanetEarth
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue 13 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cypress, CA
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 21:34:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', '
')1.026 kWh of electricity?

See what we're facing? The EROEI of all of these (except humans) is dropping. Coal was 20:1 in the late 70's. What is it now?

Imagine a future where humans are the power source because of the EROEI. Treadmills, manual labor, etc.

I recently saw that pre-fossil fuels it took 6 farming families to support one non-farming family (like a teacher). Essential services will rule quite soon.


EROEI of wind generated electricity and solar power has been improving for the last 30 years. Only non-renewables start from a high EROEI and drop as the resource becomes harder to extract. Ways of harnessing renewable energy tend to improve with technology since they involve capturing an existing energy flow ultimately derived from the sun. If you think of photosynthesis as a very inefficient biofuel system then we have been exploiting it throughout human history with greater and greather efficiency. Improvements in crop types since 8000 BC have yielded greater output in final food products. The energy of draught animals is also ultimately derived from photosynthesis. Windmills and sailing have also existed for hundreds of years and have experienced gradual improvements in that time.

So the problem isn't that the EROEI of everything is dropping and will go to 1. The problem is given the high EROEI we currently get from fossil fuels and the lower EROEI (but still greater than 1) of other sources of energy, how do we manage the transition from one source to another.

As for pre-industrial societies, the percentage of the labor force not engaged in agricultural labor was betweeen 5% and 20% so the support ratio could be as bad as 19:1 and as good as 4:1. The variability was mostly a function of the surplus produced by different crop types and different regional fertility levels (e.g. growing rice in the river basins of southern China was more efficient than growing wheat on the Nile was more efficient than growing rye in Scandinavia). This also changed over time so agriculture in England was more productive in 1800 than in 1100 and more productive in 1100 than in 100.

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, the introduction of New World crops and the rise of scientific agriculture led to much improved crop yields and started to shift the balance well before any fossil fuels were used for agriculture. In England by 1830 only 25% of the population was engaged in agriculture for a support ratio of 1:3. There have been some other basic innovations since then that owe nothing to mechanization, fossil fuel based fertilizers or pesticides. I would guess that this would make it possible to have a 1:10 support ratio even with 0 industrial energy production so only 10% of the population would have to work in agriculture. This is 5 fold drop from the current employment ratio. But since electricity generation won't completely disappear either, we may retain productivity rates that are higher and an even better than 1:10 support ratio.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 21:38:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'W')here have all the animals gone? How long would it take to get the population of beasts of burden up the the level needed, and where is the land to come from to raise the feed to keep them energized?


I like the chart here showing the replacement of horses and mules by tractors in the US. It only goes up to 1960 so I'm not sure how low horse and mule numbers have dropped since then or how long it would take to breed the animal populations back up. To keep them energized we would undoubtedly have to cut back on meat consumption and redirect the animal feed.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 23:21:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '
')
I like the chart here showing the replacement of horses and mules by tractors in the US. It only goes up to 1960 so I'm not sure how low horse and mule numbers have dropped since then or how long it would take to breed the animal populations back up. To keep them energized we would undoubtedly have to cut back on meat consumption and redirect the animal feed.


If there were a long enough time to build up these animal populations, and were there the will to do so, perhaps there would be some moderating effect. It is hard for me to imagine this happening, however, because I think that the combined effect of peak oil, progressively diminishing EROEI for conventional oil, and the effect of switching to poorer grades (NEOPO) will just bring on this crisis too rapidly. I can tell you that the population of draft horses is not a large fraction of the horse/mule population. Mostly horses are kept out in the countryside for riding and showing, and not working. Even 20 years ago, you could go to the weekly livestock auctions and in the tack portion of the sale there would be harness rigs offered; today it is rare to see these rigs because nobody is using them, even to turn a garden in the spring.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Revi » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 23:43:05

I have been thinking that it may not be too early to start to think about getting a horse. There are a couple of work horses in a pasture next to some land I own. I was visiting them last week. They are huge! The full sized truck of horses. A horse could be very useful when they start rationing gasoline. I could turn the back of my pickup into a cart. I know it sounds wierd, but if we're down by 8 million barrels per day in a couple of years it'll be the end of cars. What do you think?
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 00:11:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LateGreatPlanetEarth', 'w')e have hugely underestimated the amount of unnecessary driving which is elastic demand, the higher the cost, the more cutback there will be and the productive economy won't be affected.
The economy doesn't care what is productive or non productive. If any part of the economy contracts, the economy contracts (unless another part expands to compensate). I think this is what a lot of people keep missing. There are a lot of jobs that are unproductive, but they provide a living, and finance a mortgage, for many people. There is a lot of driving which indirectly finances other jobs (even if just through less fill-ups, less impulse buying at service stations, less snap days out, less frequent tyre changes and servicing, less frequent car replacement, ...). A contracting economy is a contracting economy and will affect the livelihoods and lives of people. You can't cut down on economic activity, without affecting the economy.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 00:22:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'I')t only goes up to 1960 so I'm not sure how low horse and mule numbers have dropped since then or how long it would take to breed the animal populations back up. To keep them energized we would undoubtedly have to cut back on meat consumption and redirect the animal feed.
I read somewhere that the US horse population, around 1900, required a quarter of all crop land, to grow the food required for them. Is going back to using animals even possible, these days, if we want to feed a much increased population too? If so, I'm sure you're right that we'd have to cut down on raising animals for food, if we want to shift to using animals for motive power. I think one estimate is that a horse requires about 5 acres, just for it's own food (though this will obviously vary from region to region).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 07:48:52

You know we must be feeling some desperation if we are talking about horses and mules. I wonder what the EROEI is for that source of energy? Could they be any better than ethanol at converting grains to useful energy?
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 16:42:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'Y')ou know we must be feeling some desperation if we are talking about horses and mules. I wonder what the EROEI is for that source of energy? Could they be any better than ethanol at converting grains to useful energy?


Horses were used for agricultural labor for hundreds of years so the EROEI must be reasonable to have been sustained. More of a land use issue as TonyPrep alludes to. Horses need dedicated pastureland or substantial hay production. The US was able to sustain a population of 30 million horses at the turn of the 20th century but the human population was also much smaller. It is hard to say how many horses we would need given the current amount of arable land under cultivation and how that would conflict with the arable land available for food production for the human population.

My guess is that we have to switch to electrical powered mechanization in agriculture. Horses are deriving energy from the same photosynthesis base as we use for food production, as does ethanol. Photosynthesis has an awful efficiency ratio (~2%) when compared to solar photovoltaics and wind turbines. And while some pastureland is not fertile enough to ever be arable, making horses less of a land competition issue than ethanol production, I doubt there is enough such land to sustain a large enough horse population. The horse scenario much like the various ethanol scenarios lead to a much lower human carrying capacity from the same amount of arable land.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 16:43:38

Oh and there are probably around 5 million horses in the US right now. (or at least there were in 1999) I imagine it would take around 10-20 years to breed 5 million horses into 30 million. Of course that assumes that all 5 million are breedworthy for agricultural work.
Last edited by TigPil on Sun 14 Jan 2007, 17:19:25, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 17:06:59

Revi, horses can be a real pain in the ass. Be sure you really want one before you make such an investment, and be sure you need one. If you need traction, oxen might be better, and you might be able to find oxen still in your neck of the woods. Oxen don't require as high quality a diet as horses, being ruminants.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Revi » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 20:37:50

I'm just musing on getting a horse. We don't have any pastureland anyway. I don't think it makes sense right now. We're working on a solar car that would be a much better solution to the problem of getting around, and it doesn't need any hay!

www.sunnev.com
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 21:55:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')'m just musing on getting a horse. We don't have any pastureland anyway. I don't think it makes sense right now. We're working on a solar car that would be a much better solution to the problem of getting around, and it doesn't need any hay!

www.sunnev.com


Well I've seen your solar car before revi and all credit to you. What puzzles me is the overall design and components used. I would have thought that to increase power efficiency then a more aerodynamic design would be required, especially with the spoked wheels. Carbon Fibre discs have been used for years in cycle racing and though not cheap would surely incrrease the efficiency of the car.

I'm not knocking your efforts by any stretch as I think that the SUNN is definitely a move in the right direction, I think it would appeal more if it had more styling.

But then again I would say that as i'ma designer by profession.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



cron