by MrBill » Thu 15 Nov 2007, 05:33:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'O')f course, in the endgame you describe, collapse is the only possibility that lies beyond some limit. It's game over once the oil available confers no economic benefit. Until then, we stagger on.
Refering to your comment as well as those of Revi and roccman below what I feel is that petroleum is an important part of our current energy mix. As a transport fuel it certainly is an important complement to our stationary sources of rewnewable and non-renewable power.
Remove petroleum, and eventually natural gas, and you reduce the total amount of our existing energy mix. That alone has profound implications as we all know as readily available substitutes just do not exist or are not scalable based on existing infrastructure and technologies.
However, if we assume that demand for power remains as before at best very inelastic, or at worse unlimited, and therefore only constrained by available supply and/or the ability to pay for it then using the same demand curve, but a lower supply curve, we see that as supply drops, but 'potential' demand remains nearly the same, that the price for all energy rises. We would expect no less.
But it is important none the less. It suggests that was once, say, renewable only accounted for 10% of our energy mix that it might automatically become 20-40% of our new energy mix or more, as the share of fossil fuels decrease. And further with improved infrastructure, delivery mechanism, reorganization and technological advances. For example, the clusters of power that Revi refers to. Or relocating centers of production to where there are reliable sources of renewable power like solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wave, wind, bio-fuels, etc.
And secondly, as petroleum becomes relatively more expensive, or simply physically not available in quantity, this changes the economics in favor of previously unprofitable alternative sources of renewable energy. The price of all energy will rise as the fossil fuel component is removed from the current energy mix, and the new equilibrium between remaining supply and existing demand is reached. I think you said as much yesterday, but perhaps in different words?
That may mean that relatively speaking that wave power might indeed be twice as expensive as wind, for example, but, of course, if you lack natural gas, or coal, both might be needed. One as base energy and one as back-up or peak energy. They are not economically competitive today with nat gas or coal, but once you remove nat gas then their economics change.
Whether we burn coal or not is more of a societal choice rather than an economic one. My feeling is that in the big power down that it will be a necessary crutch during any transition period. I just hope, personally, that we choose clean coal technology and that this technology improves over-time.
However, if your next best alternative is a return to draught or manpower then the total cost of energy can rise many times before an absolute point is reached where you substitute stationary machine power with sweat and muscle.
Think about the amount of energy a chainsaw needs running on a little bio-fuel in comparison to a lumberjack using an axe. The sawmill running on stationary power versus men using a handsaw. Or the 40-hp tractor with a front-end loader and 3-point hitch doing the same amount as work as a full team of horses on a little bio-diesel versus keeping those horses (and men) fed year-round.
But as Revi mentioned, this is more likely than not to occur in clusters, and certainly will not be enough energy to run our existing infrastructure as it is now being run. Fossil fuels are simply too important of a component of that legacy.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.