Evolutionary psychology and peak oil: A Malthusian inspired "heads up" for humanity. -- by Dr. Michael E. Mills
"Oil peaking will be catastrophic, beyond anything I have seen... We are about to drive the car over the cliff and say, `Oh my God, what have we done?'" -- Robert L. Hirsch, Ph.D., US Department of Energy consultant.
Overview.
I initially developed this webpage for my students, especially those in my Ecological Psychology course. The goal was to provide a succinct overview peak oil, and "heads up" about the social and personal challenges we will need to confront in the near future.
This web page is divided into the following topics, which will be explored in turn:
Ecological overshoot as a general problem in population biology.
The possibility of avoiding a human Mathusian collapse via a Kurzweillian "techno-fix"
Peak oil as a an example of human ecological overshoot.
Possible economic and social scenarios following peak oil.
Contributions by psychological science, and evolutionary psychology in particular, that may help to mitigate these problems.
Part 1: Ecological overshoot as a general problem in population biology.
Evolutionary scientists are aware of the concept of ecological "carrying capacity," and Malthus' application of these ideas to human populations. Malthus wrote:
"It is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of by many writers, that population must always be kept down to the level of the means of subsistence; but no writer that the Author recollects has inquired particularly into the means by which this level is effected..." -- Thomas Malthus,1798
Klein reported that in 1944, 29 reindeer were brought to St. Matthew Island. Initially there were abundant food sources, and the reindeer population increased dramatically. There were no predators to cull the population.
About 20 years after they were first introduced, the reindeer had overshot the food carrying capacity of the island, and there was a sudden, massive die-off. About 99% of the reindeer died of starvation.
As shown in the graph below, this is an example of a general phenomenon. All species suffer population collapse or species extinction if they overshoot and degrade the carrying capacity of their ecology.
Wine: Population Growth and Decline of Yeast Cells in a 10% Sugar Solution
Below is another example of a population overshoot and collapse scenario. This is the population graph of yeast cells in a 10% sugar solution. Note that the yeast population first explodes exponentially, and is then followed by population die-off as the finite nutrients are exhausted and their own waste products pollute their environment.
Source: http://dieoff.org/page137.htm Price, D. (1995). Energy and Human Evolution. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary tudies, 16, 301-19. Growth of yeast in a 10% sugar solution (After Dieter, 1962:45). The fall of the curve is slowed by cytolysis, which recycles nutrients from dead cells.
This is how yeast turns grape juice into wine. The next time you say “cheers” over a glass of wine, remember that you are drinking the waste products (alcohol) of a collapsed yeast colony with poor ecological management skills!
The primary question is this:
Are humans smarter than yeast? -- Bob Shaw
That is, as a species, can we avoid population overshoot and environmental pollution on our finite planet?
The fate of humans on Easter Island suggests, well, perhaps not.
"All species expand as much as resources allow and predators, parasites, and physical conditions permit. When a species is introduced into a new habitat with abundant resources that accumulated before its arrival, the population expands rapidly until all the resources are used up." - David Price, Energy and Human Evolution http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
When the first humans arrived on the island, there were abundant resources to support the small population. The human population increased dramatically. There were no predators to cull the population. The population continued to grow until it eventually overshot the island carrying capacity.
After overshoot, most of the population starved. Apparently, they even turned on each other, sometimes resorting to cannibalism.
For more information about carrying capacity and overshoot see:
Of course, the entire earth can also be viewed as an "island" with some resources that are finite and that are being rapidly depleted by a human population explosion.
"The world is involved in a monumental resource battle as the irresistible force of an exploding global population smashes into the immovable object of finite resources." -- David McWilliams
The graphs above suggests that humans, like the reindeer, yeast, and Easter Islanders, will eventually overshoot our planetary carrying capacity, and suffer the Malthusian consequences.
Imagine the world as a petri dish.
But... won't scientific advances and technology save us from ecological overshoot?
Raymond Kurzweil has argued in his book The Singularity is Near, that scientific knowledge, like populations, grows geometrically too. He believes this will allow us solve problems of ecological carrying capacity, cure disease and aging, and solve the problem of energy depletion. He is optimistic that technology will help us overcome population overshoot and collapse. For example, computers will become increasingly powerful, as noted in graph below of the historical and projected exponential growth of computing power.
With respect to energy, Kurzweil predicts in his article Expect Exponential Progress that "the power we are generating from solar is doubling every two years; at that rate, it will be able to meet all energy needs within 20 years."
Malthus vs. Kurzweil: Countdown to the final human race of the 21st Century.
It will be a race toward either paradise or oblivion, right to the last moment. -- Buckminster Fuller
So, we have two opposing, exponentially increasing trends. One could lead to ecological overshoot and collapse; the other could lead to scientific/technological solutions to these problems.
Malthus vs. Kurzweil
Which will arrive first? Ecological overshoot and collapse (Malthus), or a "techno-fix" (Kurzweil)?
No one knows.
But, we probably won't have to wait long to find out. One of these two scenarios will likely occur within the next several decades. But, which one?
Generally it is healthy to be optimistic.
But optimism can be deadly if it produces a Pollyannaish denial of real problems. We should not ignore problems by assuming "someone else" will take care of it, or that "the market" or "technological breakthroughs" will always come to the rescue in time.
Solutions may not come in time, and we may get a quite rude Malthusian smack down later. (In my opinion, should the internet go down due to energy shortages, the Mathusian writing will be on the wall... )
To avoid this, we must solve the transition from our finite, depleting oil resources to renewable energy.
Technological civilization runs on energy.
Part 2: Peak oil as a an example of human ecological overshoot.
"We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing. ...breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face. ...This will not be easy." -- Barack Obama, August 4, 2008 http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5zCW
One of the most critical finite energy resources are fossil fuels, which provide a cheap, dense source of energy to power technological/industrial civilization.
"Peak oil" isthe point when 1/2 of extractable world oil has been extracted.
A related concept is "peak oil production," when oil production starts an inexorable decline, causing oil prices to increase. Here, the term "peak oil" will refer to peak oil production.
The amount of oil produced by a particular oil field, or a region, shows a regular pattern: first oil production increases, then it reaches a peak, and, finally, as the oil field begins to dry up, oil production starts an inexorable decline.
This "bell curve" pattern of oil production, called the Hubbert curve, is also true for world oil production as a whole.
Below, the countries in red are already past their oil production peak; those in green have yet to pass peak (but most will in the next 5 or 10 years).
The graphs below suggest that we may be on a "bumpy plateau" for a while before we start down the inexorable down slope of the bell shaped Hubbert curve.
Source: TheOilDrum.com
Peak Oil Production: Bell Shaped Curve of World Oil Production
There are three very important "take home" messages.
The first:
1. We are close to, or at, both of these inflection points now:
Peak oil production
Oildemand/production crossover
But what about transitioning to renewable energy sources?
That would be a good idea. But we should have started 30 years ago to avoid a very difficult energy transition period.
Ready for the second take home message? Be sure you are sitting down, because the first time this reallty sinks in, it feels like taking a 2x4 to the stomach:
2. We have, as of now, no renewable energy source, nor combination of sources, that can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere near to the energy equivalent of oil, to avoid a severe, worldwide energy shortage.
Sorry to break the news.
Let's take a moment to re-read and digest that last take home message (and its implications).
"There is no quickly scalable and energy-equivalent substitute for oil" ...in termsof its energy density, EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), transportability, safety, range, infrastructure, and cost.
This is quite a tragedy -- many people in poor countries will literally starve to death because of this.
The third take home message:
3. Even if we had renewable energy sources to provide the equivalent energy of oil at the same cost, our entire economic infrastructure is oil, not electron or hydrogen, based. The economy might not be able to work as well on non-oil based energy. For example, could airplanes, or large mining trucks, be run on batteries?
So there are very grave economic and social risks starting now, and exacerbating over the next several decades.
For the past century, oil has been an essentially free source of extremely dense and useful energy. Poke a hole in the ground in the right location, and you get an unparalleled source of energy. And, it can also be used to make a variety of products such as plastics, tires, asphalt for roads, medicines, etc. That is, when we are not burning it.
I was a firm believer in solar, wind, and geothermal energy until a few years ago, and I still believe they will help individuals. But no combination of these "renewable" technologies will make a notable difference at the level of 300 million Americans, much less the 6.5 billion people in the world. ...No alternatives scale, and we're out of time. We made the important decision about energy policy at two critical junctures in American history: (1) shortly after WWII, when we created the interstate highway system and the suburbs to build a way of life that had no future because it relied completely on ready supplies of a finite resource, and (2) in 1980, when we dismissed conservation at irrelevant..." -- Professor Guy McPherson (see this link)
But what about hydrogen, and the coming "hydrogen economy?"
Take another deep breath. Hydrogen is not a source of energy (like oil is).
You can't poke a hole in the ground a "strike hydrogen." It actually takes another source of energy (such as electricity) to make hydrogen. Hydrogen is just a "storage medium" for energy, like a battery. And, it is less energy efficient than a battery.
Energy Efficiency of Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Cars vs. Battery Electric Cars:
In one year the entire world produces about 1 cubic mile of oil (2006 data). It would take 50 years of energy production by each alternative energy source below to accumulate the equivalent energy in 1 cubic mile of oil that the world uses now in one year.
To produce the equivalent amount of of the energy provided by oil in one year would take:
200 Three Gorges Dams 2,600 Nuclear Power Plants 5,200 Coal Fired Plants (not good for global warming...) 1,642,500 Wind Turbines 4,562,500,000 Solar Panel
Reaching peak oil production is bad enough. But it gets worse...
...additional factors that will likely further exacerbate the problem:
1. China and India are now growing massive middle classes.
They want cars, and this desire will substantially drive up the worldwide demand for oil.
The State of California consumes more oil every year than does the entire country of China (source). Populations: California, 37 million; China, 1.3 billion. Only about 1 out of 70 people in China currently own a car. The rest would like to. Car sales in China are up more than 800% since 2000 (source).
2. As noted above, current renewable energy sources are far less "energy dense" than fossil fuels, and they are not rapidly scalable.
A few relevant quotes:
"No combination of conservation measures, alternative energy sources, and technological advances could realistically and economically provide a way to completely replace [oil] imports in the short or medium term." -- Stuart McGill, Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President
"Based on everything we know right now, no combination of (renewable energy sources)... will even permit us to operate a substantial fraction of the systems we currently run -- in everything from food production and manufacturing to electric power generation... We are in trouble." -- James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency" "No combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels." -- Jay Hanson
"In our own day, we must eventually move to lower grade energy resources as we slowly run out of oil. Therefore, we might expect the transition from oil to oil alternatives to be a decisively less successful energy transition than previous energy transitions in history, since all the previous transitions were from low grade to high grade energy resources, and the coming oil transition is from a high energy resource of oil to lower grade energy resources." -- Professor Douglas Reynolds, oil and energy economist
"If someone, somewhere, comes up with a source of power that is safe, inexpensive, and for all intents and purposes inexhaustible, then we, the Chinese, the Indians, and everyone else on the planet can keep on truckin’. Barring that, the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all." -- Elizabeth Kolbert, Running on Fumes, The New Yorker, 11/5/07
3. Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI), or "net energy," is falling.
The real underlying problem is not peak oil, but declining "net energy" or "EROEI," for oil.
This is one of the most foundational peak oil concepts to understand. It doesn't matter how much oil is in the ground -- what matters is how expensive it is to get it (as well as the flow rate).
To get 100 barrels of oil in 1930, it took only 1 barrel of oil energy. In 1970 the ratio had dropped to about 30:1. Now that ratio has fallen to about 10:1. Once this ratio falls to 1:1, it will take more than one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil. Game over. (More info here and here; also see "Why EROI Matters" by Professor Charles Hall, and Net Energy and Jevons' Paradox, John Michael Greer.)
So, more important than peak oil is "peak net energy."
Note in the following charts how rapidly the oil EROEI decline comes near the end.
The Net Energy Cliff for U.S. Oil
Source: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3800
A smoothed look at this "net energy cliff" for U.S. oil
"If for example, we are now at 8:1 and the rate of change is 3.5% (cost doubling every 20 years) then in 20 years we will be a 4:1 and in 40 years we will be at 2:1. Perhaps we should title this curve the 'Death Curve" or the "Blindside Curve"." Source: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3800
Graphic from Energy Return on Investment - Towards a Consistent Framework, by Mulder, K. and Hagens, N.:
A technical explanation, if you are so inclined:
"The total 'resource' in the above graphic is the area A+B+C+D. It directly requires D energy to extract A+B+C+D energy. Extraction and distribution also requires indirect costs (like employees driving to work, health insurance, steel for the drillpipes, sandwich meat, etc.) This is energy cost C. As the scale of resource extraction increases, the ratio of A/(C+D) declines. Though conventional economics might not have done so, we also included cost B, which is the environmental externality costs of increased extraction. Once the scale of extraction reaches the point between A and B on the X axis, it takes more energy to produce the marginal unit than the marginal unit is worth. The 'resource' is still in the ground but is energetically unprofitable to produce. If at this point, (assuming one values the environmental tier B), an energy company uses its own stocks of energy to continue production, they do so at an energy loss, and would be better of selling or using their stored energy for other purposes."
When will ultimate net oil capacity be reached?
Total domestic U.S. oil projection (EIA) in mbpd (black) with sensitivity on net available to society (green).
Could U.S. domestic "net oil energy" fall to zero by 2022?
4. Oil exporting countries will reduce (or stop) exporting oil when they cannot meet their own growing internal demand for oil.
Because the U.S. reached peak oil in 1970, as noted above, our domestic oil production has declined ever since. Where did we get the oil we needed after that point? From foreign countries.
Today the U.S. sends over 700 billion dollars a year to foreign countries to purchase oil. Our economy can't take that kind of financial hemorrhaging for long.
Further, as those foreign countries reach peak oil, and their oil production begins to decline, they will have less oil to export.
For example, the U.S. gets much of its oil from Mexico; however Mexico will be unlikely to meet its own internal demand for oil within a decade -- there will be none left to export to the US. (See "Net Oil Exports and the Iron Triangle" by Jeffrey Brown.)
Compared to 2007, in 2008, Mexican oil production dropped 6.4% and their oil exports fell by 14%. (Source:
The "Export Land Model" by Jeffrey Brown suggests that, as world oil production declines, while at the same time world oil consumption increases, the amount of oil available for export from oil producing countries to oil importing countries will decrease over time.
Ironically, as U.S. oil production further declines, we will become increasingly dependent on oil imports in the future. (While our politicians continue to talk about oil independence as if that was a realistic possibility...)
As the cost of energy rises, the cost of everything else made with oil and oil energy (like building materials) also rises. (More info here.)
6. Oil hoarding.
Once it becomes clear that world oil production is on an inexorable decline, and that oil prices are on an ever upward trend, oil hoarding will begin. Some oil may simply not be for sale, at any price. Oil prices will spiral upward in a self-reinforcing, yet volatile, feedback loop. (More on this: see this article.)
Should the oil markets themselves begin to 'connect these dots' then all our lives are going to be impacted violently and immediately. ...as soon as Peak Oil is recognized that for all practical purposes the situation is already upon us, then a fast and vicious "resource grab" will be initiated. The price of oil in the markets will begin to rise dramatically. This will initiate a circular hedging hoarding mentality in large end-users, governments, and multi-nationals. This will then have a myriad of devastating effects... --Steven Lagavulinhttp://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2005/03/the_most_import.html
Part 3: Possible economic and social scenarios following peak oil.
"Alas, poor world, what treasure hast thou lost!" -- William Shakespeare (Venus and Adonis)
Without the quick development of dense, renewable and rapidly scalable energy sources, we may be in for a very difficult ride ahead. If we don't act now, oil may be to modern industrial/technological civilization what trees wereto the Easter Islanders, what grape juice was to the yeast colony, and what grass was to the St. Mathew Island reindeer.
Cheap, abundant energy is the oxygen of modern civilization.
There is no substitute for energy. The whole edifice of modern society is built upon it. It is not "just another commodity" but the precondition of all commodities, a basic factor equal with air, water and earth. -- E. F. Schumacher (1973)
When critical resources are decreasing, game theorists call this situation a negative sum game. Such "shrinking overall pie" situations can often lead to intense conflict, unless social structures are developed to help to enable cooperation, and, in the case of peak oil, a massive effort to develop renewable energy is started immediately.
Whether we will have enough time at that point to make the transition to renewable energy is the question.
So, what does this mean for me? For example, what will a gallon of gasoline likely cost in the future?
Superhighways, coast to coast. Easy to get anywhere. On the transcontinental over road, just climb behind the wheel. How does it feel? When there's no destination that's too far? And somewhere on the way, you might find out who you are... -- "Living in America," James Brown, song lyrics.
Ok, let's bring this home to what we all understand -- gasoline prices.
Below is one possible future price scenario for a gallon of gas. Of course, it would be surprising if the gas price projections in the table below were exactly on the mark each year, but the general upward trend in prices is likely to be accurate.
Think about this: How would your life (and the economy) change in 2012, just a few years from now, if a gallon of gas costs over $17 a gallon?
Historically, the price of a gallon of gasoline has been about the price of a barrel of oil divided by 20, with a lag of up to a year and a half. According to this historical relationship, oil at $200 a gallon might equate to gasoline at $10 a gallon.
Historical and projected (to 2012) world oil supply, demand, and price:
"The challenge over the next several decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin the transition to an economy that relies less on petroleum. The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma ...the transition could be especially disruptive." -- Council on Foreign Relations. "Independent Task Force Report #58 "National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency" http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pd
The graph below shows the percent of total world gross domestic product (GDP) (economic output) that is spent on oil. The vertical axis is price, the horizontal axis is world oil production per year. The graph is a bit difficult to interpret because there is no axis for time. However, each dot represents a particular year, and time would pretty much correspond to the horizontal axis of oil production per year. Note that as oil production has maxed out, the percent of world GDP spent on oil has shot up. With oil at $135 a barrel, the dot would be up above the top of the graph at about 6.5%.
Graph: Percent of world economic output spent on oil.
"Multiplying production (barrels per year) times the oil price (dollars per barrel) gives a total cost in dollars per year. It's an enormous number; tens of trillions of dollars per year... Oil production obviously cannot consume 100 percent of the world's income. My intuitive, uninformed guess is that it cannot go above 15 percent. If we see oil at $300 per barrel, we will be looking out over the smoldering ruins of the world's economy."
To further exacerbate the problem, world GDP will itself shrink as the price of oil increases. That is, not only will the cost of oil consume a greater percentage of the world economic pie, but the size of the economic pie itself will shrink as the price of oil increases. That is a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
As noted in the graphic below, oil production growth is highly correlated with world GDP growth. A decline in oil production will likely lead to a corresponding decline in world GDP.
"How fast does the economy decline as oil production declines? In his latest report, drawing on various sources, Robert Hirsch reasons that the correlation is 1:1. A 2.5% annual decline rate will shrink the global economy by 25% in 10 years. Other reports substantiate that ratio.
...our GDP will decline at approximately the rate oil declines.
...With the annual oil decline rate expected to range between 2% and 5% (see Hirsch, 2008) and the Oakland Peak Oil report using 2.6%, we will have a massive unemployment and homelessness problem on our hands. It also seems reasonable to expect that a great deal of wealth will be destroyed during the decline, as is happening now in the current credit crunch but on a larger scale."
In fact, 4 of the past 5 economic recessions in the U.S. followed oil price spikes.
Note the relationship between oil price spikes and economic contraction.
Also, we must consider that the nominal price of oil might fluctuate wildly as the underlying monetary supply expands (inflation) or contracts (deflation). Indeed, economic systems may become so unhinged by price fluctuations in oil that the system becomes wildly chaotic, with extreme cyclical swings prices as economies collapse to due high oi prices, recover, collapse again, and so on.
However, the bottom line is this: oil will become increasing expensive in real terms, even as it goes through wild swings of nominal decreases (due to general economic contraction and deflation) or nominal increases (due to monetary inflation). During an economic depression, the real price of oil will be too expensive for most people to sustain their current standard of living despite nominally low oil prices. That is, if you don't have much money, oil is pretty expensive even when it is nominally cheap.
As noted earlier, a shrinking economy is a "negative sum game" (similar to the game of "musical chairs"). Such situations typically lead to intense conflicts over resources (and make resource wars more likely).
"When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war; which provideth for every man, by victory, or death." - Thomas Hobbs, Leviathan
Video: Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Sr. Energy Advisor at Management Information Systems, delivers a keynote speech at the 2008 AFVi Conference in Las Vegas about the economic impacts of peak oil.
Why aren't we getting a "heads up" about peak oil?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair
Brief answer: Governments and corporations are not in the business of communicating bad news to their constituents (although ethically they should), especially when such bad news will threaten short term profits or chances of re-election. They are "near-sighted."
The first sobering "heads up" was by geologist M. King Hubbert, in 1956. He warned that oil production in the lower US 48 states would peak in 1970. In 1957, Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover gave a speech in which he warned about the future decline in fossil fuel resources, and he stressed the need to tell the younger generation. However, there were no warnings about peak oil from the government.
U.S. oil production did peak in 1970, just as had Hubbert predicted in 1956. He also warned that world oil production would peak sometime around 2000. Given that Hubbert had already gotten one prediction right, you might think that the government and corporations would warn us about the predicted 2000 world oil production peak.
Since 1956, the world economy has proceeded under a sort of oil company spell that has woven the illusion all around us that oil depletion is so far into the future that we don't need to worry about it. That belief was essential to support the aim of an endlessly growing economy.
...Today, despite skyrocketing oil prices, most politicians still avoid the term "peak oil." Most of the media still treat peak oil advocates with skepticism, using epithets like "fringe" and "so-called" to describe peak oil theory
When speaking of energy issues, politicians will often use the euphemism of energy security, acknowledging that the US has only three percent of the world's oil reserves and warning that most of the rest of it belongs to unfriendly or unstable governments. While there is truth to this type of statement, it sets up a framework for conflict by creating the perception that there is plenty of oil left but bad people are keeping it away from us. Both Democrats and Republicans buy into this view. In this election season, some Democrats seem even more willing than Republicans to play the oil fear card and promote quick-fix measures that are ineffectual or downright ridiculous.
...After years of toning down the message of peak oil in public discourse, voters need to let candidates know that now is the time to tone it up.
From 1970, when U.S. oil production peaked, until today, when world oil production is peaking, instead of warning us about peak oil, the U.S. leaders allowed us to became increasingly dependent on foreign oil by failing to start a massive program to produce renewable energy.
President Carter did make a bit of an effort to warn us. In a televised televised speech on April 18, 1977, Carter said:
Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
...The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.
Here is a video of this speech:
This theme was expanded in his July 15th, 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" speech. Carter warned that the 1979 oil crisis was the "moral equivalent of war." He also said: "We believed that our nation's resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil." Note that he came close, but he didn't quite explain why our oil resources were not "limitless."
President Carter set the following national goals in that speech (goals, which in retrospect, were a stunning failure):
Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation.
...I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds...
...we will mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.
Wait... did he say 20 percent of our energy would be from solar power by the year 2000? Did he say that we would reduce imported oil to zero by 1990?
Most egregiously, President Carter never really explicitly mentioned the words "peak oil." He never mentioned the more general problem of world oil depletion, or the declining world oil EROEI. He did not mention that renewable sources of energy could not replace the equivalent amount of energy provided by oil.
Had the real, underlying problem been clearly articulated back then, might things have turned out differently 30 years later? What if, back in 1979, President Carter had mentioned that oil production in the U.S. had peaked nine years ago, and we were on a irreversible decline? What if he had mentioned that Hubbert had forecasted that peak, and that we had only about 20 years to prepare before Hubbert's prediction that world oil production would peak around 2000?
At least President Carter mentioned the general problem, albeit without mentioning peak oil. To be fair, none of the subsequent presidents have never mentioned the words "peak oil" in public, either.
In 1980 Carter proclaimed, in what came to be called the Carter Doctrine, that the U.S. would intervene militarily if our oil supply from the mid-east was threatened. Apparently he was aware that renewable sources of energy were not going to replace oil quickly enough, despite his earlier comments to the contrary.
In 1993, President Clinton, along with the heads of the major U.S. car companies, launched the Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles. By 1997, they had produced an 72 mpg concept "supercar" that would be a diesel-hybrid combination. After a billion dollars of government money, in 2000 the concept cars were wheeled out.
In 2002 the Bush Administration scrapped the project.
In her article Running on Fumes, Elizabeth Kolbert reviews this project, and writes:
Detroit has to change. Detroit won't change. The two statements seem incompatible, and yet here we are. The Big Three still claim to be on the verge of introducing revolutionary new technologies—"Imagine: A daily commute without a drop of gas," a G.M. ad touting a battery-powered car (still in the concept stage) exhorts—even as they continue to fight higher fuel-efficiency standards, on the ground that meeting such standards would be technologically infeasible.
Today, we still aren't we getting a "heads up" from the current U.S. President, or other world leaders. Why?
If a bus is barreling down the street toward you, don't your leaders and the media have an ethical duty to warn you?
Although we have not gotten a warning from top government and business leaders, or from the majority of the main stream media, the word is starting to get out.
A very small group of U.S. congressional representatives -- the US Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, with representatives Udall and Bartlett, is sounding a warning. But this issue is so important, it should be coming from the very top national and international leaders.
Is there enough time (and oil) left to make the transition to renewable energy?
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." -- Winston Churchill, November 1939
In 1977 Barry Commoner wrote in The Politics of Energy that we must begin developing renewable energy now becausetheremaining oil reserves themselves will be needed to serve as the transitional medium to build a renewable energy infrastructure. That was over 30 years ago.
More recently, Dr. Robert Hirsch, in a study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy titled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management concluded that to avoid serious impacts, a peak oil mitigation crash program must start 20 years before peak oil. We apparently are at peak oil now, and the crash mitigation program has yet to begin.
Again, the critical issue is this: once peak oil and its potential consequences become generally known and accepted, will there be enough time to make the transition to renewable energy sources quickly enough to avoid major economic and social disruptions?
Will the last precious barrels of oil be used to power SUVs, or will they be used to build the renewable energy infrastructure that is needed to avoid an energy famine?
For now, what renewable sources of energy can help to at least mitigate the upcoming energy famine?
Let's evaluate several sources of energy in terms of their current potential.
Note: I am not an energy expert. However, I developed the tables below simply because I could find no similar simple, overall summary developed by experts. The data in the tables are my rough estimates, and, could be a bit off the mark.
Point values in the tables below:
5 - Very Good 4 - Good 3 - Medium 2 - Poor 1 - Very Poor
