Pidgey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,125
Yes, that's the theory. For those of us in the Applications Department, reality can be a real bee-yatch, though. It's more than just a differential equation between the net carbon energy delivered to the market and the net alternative energy produced, it also has to factor in the cost of said alternative energy and the difficulty of applying it. Currently, liquid fuels are what they are: ungodly high energy density compared to any alternative.
Probably the worst actual enemies here are the geopolitical feedbacks in resource depletion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3163
In point of fact, there have been multiple times in our history where the balance between resource utilization and population have forced an "adjustment" in population. Take the shift from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) for instance as that's when the Black Death occurred. Populations that become stressed by diminished food availability become more susceptible to disease. That's how you have to understand energy even though that example is the energy that we power our bodies with instead of our cars or our current economy.
And in that "paper" that you're referring to, the comparison is made between a theoretical production/depletion model and reality. In the first case (US production) the reality as demonstrated by actual annual production numbers is a very nice overlay on the theoretical curve. By this, we can say that the model is acceptably predictive. When we apply it to world production, we produce another curve (same shape; different magnitude) that's looking like it's going to fit the reality as well for Regular Conventional Oil (RCO). The lion's share of the oil that we've yet to produce is heavier (this ultimately means less net energy for several reasons); has more heavy metal, sulfur and other undesirable compounds in it; and is more expensive to recover.
Energy that is more expensive IS the ultimate reason for our current economic crisis. Economy IS energy and its utilization. We can start chasing the efficiency curve but we actually have been for quite some time. Yes, we've still got some wallowing room but it remains to be seen how that will match up in realtime with the depletion rate. It's not currently looking too good.
But, the actual subject of the thread is who to shore up and why. My vote would be to shore up energy production (alternatives, domestic production) and massive conservation efforts. For those folks not in those areas of endeavor, it would be required to find a way to make US products somehow competitive in a world market. That whole "we're becoming a service economy" crap isn't flying. Here's a good example of a service economy with not enough energy: "I'll do your laundry and you can do mine!"
Probably the worst actual enemies here are the geopolitical feedbacks in resource depletion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3163
In point of fact, there have been multiple times in our history where the balance between resource utilization and population have forced an "adjustment" in population. Take the shift from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) for instance as that's when the Black Death occurred. Populations that become stressed by diminished food availability become more susceptible to disease. That's how you have to understand energy even though that example is the energy that we power our bodies with instead of our cars or our current economy.
And in that "paper" that you're referring to, the comparison is made between a theoretical production/depletion model and reality. In the first case (US production) the reality as demonstrated by actual annual production numbers is a very nice overlay on the theoretical curve. By this, we can say that the model is acceptably predictive. When we apply it to world production, we produce another curve (same shape; different magnitude) that's looking like it's going to fit the reality as well for Regular Conventional Oil (RCO). The lion's share of the oil that we've yet to produce is heavier (this ultimately means less net energy for several reasons); has more heavy metal, sulfur and other undesirable compounds in it; and is more expensive to recover.
Energy that is more expensive IS the ultimate reason for our current economic crisis. Economy IS energy and its utilization. We can start chasing the efficiency curve but we actually have been for quite some time. Yes, we've still got some wallowing room but it remains to be seen how that will match up in realtime with the depletion rate. It's not currently looking too good.
But, the actual subject of the thread is who to shore up and why. My vote would be to shore up energy production (alternatives, domestic production) and massive conservation efforts. For those folks not in those areas of endeavor, it would be required to find a way to make US products somehow competitive in a world market. That whole "we're becoming a service economy" crap isn't flying. Here's a good example of a service economy with not enough energy: "I'll do your laundry and you can do mine!"
