Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green New Deal - Why It Can't Work As Set Out

To read the financial press (WSJ, Financial Times) the last few weeks it is evident a form of hysteria has seized the assorted columnists, e.g. Holman Jenkins Jr.

Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky - WSJ

and editors (e.g. "$1, 973 LEDs and the Green New Deal', WSJ p. A14 Feb.16-17)

Some in the more reactionary enclaves of the media have even warned that if such a Green New Deal comes to pass, Americans will be left with no burgers or pork chops to eat, and will have to bike to work given all cars will ne prohibited.  Amidst this hysteria is there a way to import some sense and a scientific perspective?  I believe so, and that's the purpose of this post.

First, let's turn once more to one of the more sensible and intelligent WSJ columnists, Greg Ip ('Upside Down Economics of Green New Deal', February 14, p. A2).  Among the points noted by Mr. Ip:

- "The premise of the Green New Deal is correct. While the world may not spomntaneously combust in 10 years, global C)2 emissions need to start dropping soon, by a lot - to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 Celsius.

-- Because the private market has no incentive to reduce carbon emissions government intervention is necessary."

Given these two propositions are accepted by most insightful - intelligent citizens, what's the problem?  Ip again:

"Kevin Book, head of research at Clearview Energy Partners, estimates replacing 83% of the current U.S. energy generation that is not renewable with solar, wind and biomass, would cost $2.9 trillion - nearly a full year's tax revenue."

In other words, taxes would have to be raised and not just on the wealthy. Now, counterpoise these numbers with a recent U.N. report affirming that hitting the 1.5 C target would cost an average of $3.5 trillion per year through 2050.  This is nearly $1 trillion per year more than the current pledges from government.  But with such enormous demand, the bulk of the money will have to come from the private sector.  Mind you, there are already nibbles of energy efficient improvement (i.e. Walmart has installed more than 1.5 million LED light fixtures across more than 6,000 stores) but much more is needed.

Indeed, lost in the mix is just how much high quality, intense energy is actually needed to run the U.S. economy and industrial civilization overall.   Where will the energy come from to support an industrial-energy intense and consumptive civilization? You can’t just say “new non-fossil sources” and leave it at that. What new sources? Where? As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc. Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

But how correct is he?

One needs to process that different kinds of energy resources have fundamentally different "qualities". For example, a BTU of oil (oil before it is burnt) is fundamentally different than a BTU of coal. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal. It is also easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive wastes only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.

This means you need to factor that increase in for coal  (OR - for any combination of non-fossil fuel sources) to get the same amount of work done.

Ditto with solar. Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion (or replacement)  of fossil fuels are:  muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

Further, Matt Savinar (Life After the Oil Crash) has shown that NONE of the alter-sources usually cited: from methane hydrates, from coal, from geothermal hot dry rock technology, from natural gas, from oil shales and tar sands, from secondary recovery of existing oil fields, and so on- will do squat to totally replace the energy now being consumed for our entire infrastructure, from powering a military-industrial complex with umpteen bombers, and now missile defense, plus more tanks for occupations and wars, not to mention sustaining growth in industries, new computers, maintaining the electrical power grid and building new nuclear reactors.

To further fix ideas and get into the more practical realm it is useful to cite  The Physicist's Desk Reference (Table C, p. 187, Energy Generation by Type) showing the most energy-intense uses (aggressive consumption category, I) for all forms of solar, geothermal and wind are projected to total only about 9 exajoules by next year.Thus, ALL the usual "green" alternatives are projected to barely add up to a blip on the energy "radar" .(Note:  1 EJ   = (10¹⁸) joules   J)

For reference, current yearly U.S. energy consumption is 94 EJ.. To put the numbers in a harsher perspective, any serious major effort to "decarbonize" the planet will require an amount of clean energy on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year  or 360 EJ. To reach this target even within 3 decades the world's nations would need to add 3.3 trillion more kwh of clean energy every year. Solar and wind simply cannot scale up to that level in that time, so the only remaining form of energy - apart from fossil fuels - is nuclear and at least one climate scientist (James Hansen)  has recommended such incorporation . See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/top-climate-scientist-advocates-nuclear.html

All told, 220 reactors are currently being built or planned worldwide, with another 324 on the drawing board.  If replacing fossil fuels is a genuine goal, these reactors can't come onstream fast enough.

Leave out nuclear and how long it will take to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year. Well, even I the most optimistic scenario it would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus.

Given this, one thing the Green New Dealers don't need is flippant or stupid comments, remarks. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent NY Times op-ed Ocasio-Cortez’s staff certainly "made a huge mistake by releasing a flip document about the Green New Deal  resolution saying that it will be impossible to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes in 10 years" .  This was like a gift, providing Republicans an opening to claim that Democrats want to "ban hamburgers and air travel."

Conservo hack Michael Barone (writing in a rag called 'The Washington Examiner') actually claimed the Left - using the Green New Deal - wanted "to abandon even 20th century technology and go back to the 19th century" - including wagon trains and old style steam locomotives.

Of course,  that's nonsense but Dems must be savvy enough to grasp the Reeps and conservo nabobs will search for anything to paint the D progressive wing as commies, out of touch or nuts.  See, for example, my post from yesterday referencing a recent  WSJ  op-ed by Lance Morrow.  This preposterous  piece of twaddle inflated a number of minor progressive proposals (e.g. from the left's LGBTQ  and MeToo wings) to make it seem like progressives as a whole were planning the overthrow of Western civilization. Seriously!   

Meanwhile, Ms. Goldberg also cited. Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith who made a convincing case for a version of a Green New Deal that emphasized funding the development and export of green technologies and also included a carbon tax and carbon tariffs. The United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions.   But in a hypothetical future where America became a leader on climate, it would probably have to use economic incentives to get other CO2 spewing nations to cooperate. 

But all of this may merely be dodging the core issue: Can alternative sources of energy support this nation's energy demands in 10 or even 20 years?    The $64 question is: Can adequate alternative energy sources fill in most of the gaps, say when the last break -even oil is exhausted and only the very expensive to drill form remains? It’s all very well to speculate and ruminate that future energy needs will be met, but the question remains: HOW? When one does the math, and in particular pays attention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the entropy law)  and the ‘net energy equation’. At the heart of all salient considerations to replace fossil fuels - especially oil -  is the latter (cf. Physics Today, July 2004, p. 51)

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op) + E/T]

To fix ideas:  The planet was endowed with roughly  3,000 billion barrels of oil – of which we’ve consumed 1,700 billion barrels but only  300 billion barrels of relatively cheap oil remains (assuming increased deep sea floor drilling), after which 500 billion barrels of “break-even” oil remains.  Arrival at the latter phase means the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is close to zero. In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

Thus, there is no net gain in energy given the quantity accessed is basically the same as that which must be used to obtain it.  This is what we are approaching now with shale and tar sands oil.  Here's another alarming aspect:  As that usable, higher EROEI oil is depleted how much renewable energy in the form of solar, geothermal, wind, etc. is needed to replace it to sustain our industrial society which also depends on an extensive military component?  It turns out a lot and vastly more than is currently  coming onstream - if nuclear energy is omitted.

Here's an even more sobering wake up call:   The stage is set to add 25 % MORE humans by 2050, topping off at nearly  9.5  billion.  This will necessitate - if we still plan to retain solar in the mix - converting an area the size of Europe to solar panel arrays. In addition, to feed all those hungry mouths, we will need to add an agricultural area the size of the whole continent of South America - especially given how the eating habits of Chinese and Indians have now altered to become more "American" (e.g. much more meat, like steaks, etc. - which re-acquire vastly more water and resources to produce)

The bottom line here isn't very pretty. It reads like this: Alternative energy sources - no matter how many are incorporated - will provide only a very marginal, fractional benefit unless:

a) humans majorly reduce their birth rates around the world, and

b) Our concentrated energy use society is rendered much more delocalized and diffused so that it can better adapt to the diffuse,  lower quality capacity of alternative energy sources.

I suspect neither of these will occur, meaning that as we approach the climate change critical stage, there will be literal hell to pay and no real "Green" salvation to spare us.   The most alarming recent revelation concerns the much more rapid warming of the oceans.   Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published  in the journal Nature  noted:

"If you look at the IPCC 1.5C, there are big challenges ahead to keep those targets, and our study suggests it's even harder because we close the window for those lower pathways. A warmer ocean will hold less oxygen, and that has implications for marine ecosystems.  There is also sea level, if you warm the ocean more you will have more thermal expansion and therefore more sea level rise."

The critical element is the fact that as waters get warmer they release more carbon dioxide and oxygen into the air.  As Dr. Resplandy made clear:

"When the ocean warms, the amount of these gases that the ocean is able to hold goes down,"  

Adding:

"So what we measured was the amount lost by the oceans, and then we can calculate how much warming we need to explain that change in gases."

Lastly:

"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted.  But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already".

Given ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that  leaves nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide. That is, assuming there is any hope in limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.  Many newer results show this is overly optimistic and neglecting other factors in play, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

The takeaway here?  While the Green New Deal definitely sounds promising on its face,  doing the math shows that it simply can't achieve what it claims to in the time - say 12 years.  Certainly not without massive infusions of nuclear power.  This doesn't mean doing nothing, but the humans on this planet have to understand that they are the source of most of the greenhouse gases. 

Cutting human numbers, despite what the loopy economists say (i.e. regarding the need for "more economic growth") is a major first step.  That will mean less CO2 churned out, by fewer autos and coal -fired plants, and less need to chop down more forests. It also means not allowing human numbers to reach anywhere near 9 billion in 30 years. We need, in other words, massive  birth control expansion as well as massive nuclear energy expansion. And that will be just to contain the most dire effects of a rapidly warming planet.

There are bound to be affirmative voices that the Green New Deal can work (see links below), but I'd challenge any of them to do the same physics and math and still claim the plan's objectives can be attained in the given time frame. Especially if nuclear energy is not part of the solution!

See also:

Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Climate Change Is Scary—Not the Green New Deal

And:

Economic Policy | Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Answering the Attacks on the Green New Deal

by John Feffer | February 21, 2019 - 6:58am | permalink

— from Foreign Policy In Focus

The Productivity Conundrum Surfaces Again

Ask nine of ten economists what is the biggest controversy today, and apart from whether or not the Fed will keep raising interest rates, they are likely to respond "Productivity!"   In other words, is it really decreasing or is this merely a figment of our measuring tools and perceptions?  Never mind the ubiquitous smart phones and apps which facilitate most of the mundane actions of our lives, the BLS (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) keeps insisting that productivity is declining and has been over the last decade.

As TIME economic columnist Rana Foroohar observes (p. 20, Sept. 5):


"The BLS numbers are a big deal. With birthrates falling and immigration down, productivity needs to go up or we'll soon be worse off economically than our parents."

Foroohar goes on to assert that "the slowdown in productivity is now widely seen as one of the big factors in America's tepid recovery."

But I already put forward subtle physical reasons for this, namely that one can't reduce productivity simply to human labor but also to the quality of energy used to expedite that labor. This includes a whole spectrum of machines as well as the fuel- sources they need to run on.

What we already know, and this isn't even up for debate, is that the EROEI or energy returned on energy invested, has been steadily decreasing for almost two decades.  In the case of oil alone, what used to engender an EROEI of 16:1 to 19:1 several decades ago is now headed for 5:1. This means less efficient energy use and by extension less efficient use of human labor to produce whatever products or services are needed by a complex, mainly industrial economy. Take everything from MRI machines, to automobiles (and auto factories) , to passenger jets, a lower energy EROEI means a lower productivity for the manufacture of all of the above, because it takes much more energy to produce each unit.

Based on this, one sees that the retirement of higher skilled Baby Boomer workers is not fully to blame for the situation, nor is it the more laid back lifestyle choices of many millennial workers. Even if the Boomer workers remained on the job and the millennials all turned into workaholics it would not solve the problem and increase productivity.

Why isn't digital technology making a productivity difference? The basic reason is that no matter how much digital gizmos a company has if they lack access to higher EROEI sources they will still remain behind the productivity eight ball. And as author Matt Savinar has observed, ultimately all those digital apps, laptops, etc. depend themselves on the quality of the energy sources - as anyone can attest to when the power goes out.

The mistake "homo economicus"  continues to make, then, is confusing advancing technology with advanced energy supply. The point Savinar made ('Life After the Oil Crash') is that no amount of computer or other technology will make a dime's worth of difference if there isn't adequate energy to run all those devices on.

Just consider for reference the monumental snafu that occurred when Delta commercial planes across the nation were brought to a halt because their central ticketing  and coordinating center in Atlanta went down. This was ultimately traced  a blown electronic component, though Delta originally attempted to blame the power company.

Never mind, hundreds of flight connections were missed and millions of man hours lost because of this blown component. Now  consider, as Savinar implores us to do, what would happen if an entire power grid went down because of a massive blackout owing to excessive demand on the grid or lack of the high quality oil to run it.

No wonder then, that Northwestern University's Robert Gordon has posited that the Industrial  Revolution (at the turn of the 19th century) had a vastly bigger effect on productivity, economic growth than the so-called "PC revolution" in the 20th. Think about it! The former meant transition from the impossibly laughable energy of whale oil to kerosene, coal etc., a mammoth jump in the EROEI of available energy sources. The latter transpired over a period of roughly 20 years over which the EROEI of oil actually decreased from 16:1 to roughly 10:1 according to Savinar. So no wonder even millions of computers were not able to match the sheer change in productive output that accompanied the Industrial Revolution- and within the scope of the latter's purview we include the internal combustion engine, electricity, and indoor plumbing.

Gordon argues, and he's correct, that by the time the digital revolution got under way- say in the 80s- the big payoff in productivity began shrinking. Meanwhile, the PC-computing payoff basically has "come and gone" dissipating by 2004, when EROEI reached below 10:1 and fracking began as a last desperate effort to snare the vestigial ""riches" of oil - along with deep sea drilling.

Foroohar interjects certain techie skeptics who insist the BLS just isn't "counting productivity correctly". She adds:

"They argue the BLS is still too focused on the production of physical goods  missing hard to count benefits of the digital revolution".

But still, that misfires since as Savinar observed all that these benefits did is to expedite speed of transactions a bit (like in fractional stock trades and flash trades) but ultimately these too are hostage to EROEI and  energy quality. Thus, let too many flash trades be made in an increment of time delta t, and the whole system can't handle them. Then you see a flash crash like occurred in 2010. So in the end, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Foroohar points out this is also the conclusion of the Fed and IMF based on their own study. Thus, digital computing just doesn't make that big a difference .

Foroohar also points out:

"What we know for sure is that America's biggest run up in productivity occurred from 1945 to 1973, when there were major public investments in education, infrastructure, and worker training ".

But those investments didn't just occur in a vacuum. They were ultimately supported by the highest ever EROEI oil which hit as high as 19:1 in the early 1970s.

And as Foroohar's last statement puts it:

"Nobody us suggesting that productivity isn't rising because individuals aren't working hard enough. On the contrary, most economists believer the American blue and white collar workers alike are firing on all cylinders."

Indeed they are. It's just that the base energy they have to work with, to power their cars, computers or other machines, keeps declining in quality.

The next time you get into a debate with a co-worker or online econ aficionado about productivity be sure you bring up this aspect. It will render the discussion more serious, and they ought to thank you for that!

The Transition To Alternative Energy Sources By 2030 - A Bridge Too Far?

Alternative, non-fossil fuel sources of energy are critical for the world to avoid a greenhouse calamity - namely the runaway greenhouse effect. But that requires implementing enough exajoules of solar, wind, geothermal, etc. before the next 50 percent of oil reserves is removed.

President Barack Obama has said he aims to have fully 20 percent of U.S. electricity come from solar and wind by 2030. The question is: Is that goal feasible or pie in he sky? Looking at the energy numbers can shed a lot of light, and when one does so the future doesn't look so bright. In fact, human history has shown energy revolutions, transformations generally take lots more time (and effort) than humans assume.

For perspective, and as pointed out in an excellent WSJ article ('Power Up',  Aug. 22, p.C1-C2) the contribution of solar photo-voltaic to global electricity has increased tenfold in the past six years.  But is it enough to meet Obama's goals? Scenarios run by the author's firm show solar reaching 4- 9 percent by 2040. By the end of this year it could account for 1 percent of world electricity or 0.2 percent of total energy. Wind energy growth, meanwhile, in similar scenarios could reach  9- 13 percent of the global total by 2040.

It sounds doable but the joker running wild is population growth. Because unless that is also taken into account all bets are off. If, on the other hand, population remained stable or decreased then it might be feasible.

Global energy consumption rose from barely 21 EJ (exajoules)  in 1900, to 318 EJ in 1988, to close to 400 EJ today. Solar, geothermal + wind by the end of this year, will therefore have contributed only:

(6/ 400) x 100% = 1.5% of the total global demand

But this is exactly the rate of increase in global population per year! In other words, the added total alternative energy benefit is sacrificed because we added an extra percentage of humans to consume the benefit! In effect, our energy predicament is like a rat spinning its toy wheels in a cage and getting no where.

The stage is set to add 25% MORE humans by 2050, topping off at 9 billion (hopefully!), which will necessitate - if we still plan to retain solar in the mix - converting an area the size of Europe to solar panel arrays. In addition, to feed all those hungry mouths, we will need to add an agricultural area the size of the whole continent of South America - especially given how the eating habits of Chinese and Indians have now altered to become more "American" (e.g. much more meat, like steaks, etc. - which require vastly more water and resources to produce)

When one does the math, and in particular pays attention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the ‘net energy equation’, Obama's goal isn't simple by any means. Nowhere near as simple as building 20 million wind turbines or laying down 400,000 acres of solar cells.

The key question is where will energy come from to support an industrial-energy intense and consumptive civilization? You can’t just say “new sources” and leave it at that. What new sources? Where? As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc. Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

But how correct is he?

One needs to process that different kinds of energy resources have fundamentally different "qualities". For example, a BTU of oil (oil before it is burnt) is fundamentally different than a BTU of coal. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal; it is easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive wastes only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.

This means you need that factor increase in coal to equal a similar amount of oil, to get the same work done.

Ditto with solar. Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available.Solar power currently has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

Worse, calculations show that solar cells currently consume twice as much sej as they produce, so they're no bargain. Worse, an entirely solar civilization would most likely have to exist at the power output and potential (relative to electric grid capacity) of about one half where we are now. Plus, the collector area would have to expand to around that of the states of Colorado and Nevada combined.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuels are muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

Further, Matt Savinar (Life After the Oil Crash) has shown that NONE of the alter-sources usually cited: from methane hydrates, from coal, from geothermal hot dry rock technology, from natural gas, from oil shales and tar sands, from secondary recovery of existing oil fields, and so on- will do squat to totally replace the energy now being consumed for our entire infrastructure, from powering a military-industrial complex with umpteen bombers, and now missile defense, plus more tanks for occupations and wars, not to mention sustaining growth in industries, new computers, maintaining the electrical power grid and building new nuclear reactors.

The bottom line is that it is doubtful Obama's projections can be met unless either: a) the U.S. population's energy demand decreases in inverse proportion to the population increase, i.e. if the population increases by ten percent the energy demand must be reduced by ten percent, or b) new advances in solar and wind power efficiency can be made to balance the offsetting effects of population growth.

If neither of these hold then all bets are off for a brighter energy future.

Does Cheap Oil Disprove Peak Oil? Absolutely Not!

Blogger Arun Gupta recently wrote a piece on smirkingchimp in which he claims that Peak Oil is all overblown nonsense. According to Gupta:

"Fervent peak oilers are neo-Malthusians, believing the relentless growth of population and society on their own will outstrip natural resources. While Malthus’s ideas were discredited on scientific, historical, and economic grounds in the 19th century, they live on in peak oil, peak water, peak minerals, peak soil, peak food and peak everything."

But in fact, this is emphatically true, despite Gupta lacking the education to see it. Please refer to:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/yes-population-growth-spurs-higher.html

And:

 http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

The gist of the above content is that YES- usable energy and resources are decreasing and at a clip most people don't grasp (including Gupta). But the evidence is all around including: slow economic growth, lack of new investments which help many people instead of the few, and ever increasing difficulty in obtaining oil supplies.

One of Gupta's biggest howlers in his piece is when he claims:

"The inherent flaw of peak oil is that it naturalizes capitalism. Energy reserves are determined by price, investment and technology. The current oil boom, driven by innovations in fracking and drilling, tar-sands production, low-cost investment capital and persistently high oil prices, have smashed Hubbert’s theory to bits like brittle shale."

First some background into Hubbert's theory, as Gupta accurately notes:

" Shell Oil geologist Marion King Hubbert developed peak oil theory in the 1950s, predicting domestic U.S. oil production would peak by 1970 and decline steadily thereafter. In exploiting an individual oil field, Hubbert contended, production ramps up quickly and hits a peak at about which time about half the recoverable oil has been extracted. As the oil becomes increasingly difficult and costly to pump out, the field goes into decline. Think of the production as abell-shaped curve. The top point means half is gone and half is left. But because population and the economy continue to grow, so do energy needs. Hubbert held that his theory about an individual field was applicable to the continental U.S. oil production and even the entire world, which he predicted would peak around 2000."

But hold on! In fact the evidence shows that global Peak Oil occurred around 2005-06. But what about the so-called "oil boom" due to fracking etc. It's all bogus!  It arises by conflating all oil sources as having the same efficiency to deliver energy.

At the heart of Gupta's - and many others' misunderstanding - is the failure to distinguish between different classes of oil.  Here is my effort to sum it all up, from an energy perspective, so readers can consider it the 'Cliff Notes' version of the whole story:

The planet was endowed with ~ 3,000 billion barrels of oil  – of which we’ve consumed one third and another one sixth of relatively cheap oil remains, after there will reside another third of “break-even” oil (costs as much to access as it delivers), after which one -sixth of very expensive oil remains (costs much more to reach it than it deliver in energy).  At the heart of these considerations is the net energy eqn. (cf. Weisz, in Physics Today, July, 2004, p. 51)

 

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op)  + E/T]

 

In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

 

Thus, there is no net gain in energy given the quantity that must be used to obtain it.

 

For the last 700 billion barrels:    Q(net) = negative quantity =  -Q

 

Since the rate of energy production (Q (PR) must be debited by the energy consumed for its operation Q(op), and the energy E invested during its “lifetime” T. Thus its Q(PR) will be small in relation to the bracketed quantity.

In a similar vein, Richard Heinberg uses the quantity EROEI or ‘Energy returned on energy invested’ which for oil reached a high of 30 (ratio) in the 70s and is still the highest of all energy sources at around 22.   Thus, the problem in a nutshell is not “running out of oil’ per se but running out of CHEAP oil.

 Bottom line, we need not run out of the stuff before the world economy runs into problems of untold, unspeakable proportions! We already have ample economic indicators showing the signs.

“Peak Oil’ is a somewhat misleading a term, since it suggests a specific date of peak production- a common error Gupta also makes, i.e.

 

"Then there is the concept of a peak. Even though Hubbert was off by only one year—domestic production peaked in 1971—production looks nothing like his bell curve over time. It rose after each seventies shock, went into a twenty-year funk after the mid-eighties crash, and in the last five years it has soared to near its 1971 peak."

 

In the real world, the top part of the oil production curve is nearly flat (cf. A. Bartlett, Physics Today, op. cit. p. 54)  In more practical terms – what it means is that if 2005  was the actual year of peak oil production then the worldwide oil production in 2025 will be the SAME as in 1985, demanding that Q(net) > 0.   Also, it means that 2045 will be the same as 1965, and 2065 will be the same as 1945, and 2085 will be the same as 1925! All this while the population is expected to reach 9 billion or more in the SAME PERIOD! (cf. Bartlett, ibid.) In other words, as time goes on the available accessible oil constantly diminishes even as population constantly rises with the same demands.

Hubbert predicted U.S. oil production would peak around 1970,  which it did (at 2.2 liters per person per day). He also predicted world production would peak around 1995, which it would have – had the severe OPEC-induced oil crises not created an artificial supply problem in 1973, thereby pushing this critical peak back 10 years (to 2005).

 

 Some wildly optimistic prognosticators forecast predictions that 2020-2035 will the “true” date, but as Matt Savinar points out (‘Life After the Oil Crash’ p. 7), these are all based on government agencies “that admit cooking their books" - like they do with inflation and unemployment numbers. SO how can you believe them? You can't!

 

Now, let's return to the claims made for fracking. Alas, fracking oil - drilling into shale rock to get kerogen, or alternatively, natural gas, is in fact evidence of grabbing BREAK EVEN oil NOT high EROEI oil!  It is a sign of defeat and desperation.  not success - just like deep sea drilling for oil.

As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book, 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

 

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

 

Also (ibid.) :

 

"A  study of the EROEI for electrical heating of methane hydrate deposits between 1000 and 1500 meters deep yielded ratios from 2:1 up to 5:1, depending on the source of the electricity"

 

Regarding the promises for kerogen or oil shale, he writes:

 

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. 

 

Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil."

 

In other words, conflating oil shale (kerogen) with actual light crude oil of high EROEI is like mixing up cow turds with cow's (calves') liver.  One can be eaten, the other can't - and for the oil - one requires additional energy inputs to put to use, the other only refining.

 

Heinberg's numbers and projections are reinforced by sound sources such as the London-based brokerage firm Tullet Prebon, whose Strategic Insight report declares:

 

 

"Our calculated EROEIs both for 1990 (40:1) and for 2010 (17:1) are reasonably close to the numbers cited for those years by Andrew Lees. For 2020, our projected EROEI of 11.5 to 1 is not as catastrophic as 5: 1 but would nevertheless mean that the share of GDP absorbed by energy costs would have escalated to 9.6% from about 6.7% today. Our projections further suggest energy costs would absorb as much as 15% of GDP (at an EROEI of 7.7 to 1)  by 2030."

 

The Report goes on to note that the "diminishing dismal energy returns" (and again one needs to separate Q(PR)   from Q(net))  means that "the economy we have known for two centuries will cease to become viable at some point." In other words, far from being "capitalistic" - the Peak Oil model and meme is fiercely the opposite because it discloses there are serious limits to our use of resources. BY implication - and direct observation as here in Colo. with its 50,000 frack wells - it also means we have already passed the break even oil extraction point.

 

Obama, in addition, now evidently wants to permit deep sea drilling off the Atlantic coast, which is further evidence the break even point has been passed and we are I desperation oil extraction mode.

 

Stop and think - and read - before you buy into the bullshit that cheap oil prices mean Peak Oil is or was a myth. And should you disbelieve it, then take note of this forecast from yours truly: as high quality, efficient oil becomes ever scarcer, look for returns on investments to sink ever lower and the world economy to 'bottom out' with growth barely 1 percent per year. Look also for common goods including food to become ever more expensive since oil is the fuel needed to produce it, as well as transport it. Not to mention the water resources consumed as well.

 

Oh, and look for your energy bill - relatively low now - to go through the freaking ceiling!