(Permission to reprint expressly granted!)

ENERGY SYNOPSIS
by Jay Hanson, 9/22/00 -- http://www.dieoff.org

"What becomes of the surplus of human life? It is either, 1st. destroyed by infanticide, as among the Chinese and Lacedemonians; or 2d. it is stifled or starved, as among other nations whose population is commensurate to its food; or 3d. it is consumed by wars and endemic diseases; or 4th. it overflows, by emigration, to places where a surplus of food is attainable."
-- James Madison, 1791

ENERGY SOURCES

Energy is the capacity to do work (no energy = no work).

By definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they consume, otherwise they are called "sinks" (this is known as the "net energy" principle).

Moreover, physical constraints limit how "fast" energy can be produced from a nonrenewable natural resource (the "peak" principle). One can only extract it at a certain rate, the rate peaks, and as the source empties, the rate falls off.

THE GLOBAL "EUR" OIL "PEAK"
For many years, geologists and petroleum engineers have published estimates of how much oil can be recovered from any given basin. This is known as "Estimated Ultimately Recoverable" (or "EUR") oil. Remarkably, estimates of total worldwide EUR oil have varied little over the past half century!  http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html --  http://dieoff.com/eur.htm -- http://dieoff.com/eur.xls -- http://dieoff.com/eur.pdf

Forty years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for projecting future oil production and predicted that oil production in the lower 48 states would peak about 1970. This prediction has proved to be remarkably accurate. Both total and peak yields have risen slightly compared to Hubbert's original estimate, but the timing of the peak and the general downward trend of production were correct. Hubbert showed that oil production begins to peak and starts to decline when approximately half of the EUR oil has been recovered.

The petroleum industry itself has announced that global oil production will "peak" in less than ten years!

IHS Energy Group (formerly Petroconsultants) is the world's leading provider of data and analysis for oil exploration and production. The company maintains its headquarters at a custom-built communications center in Geneva. It also has offices in London, Houston, Calgary, Sydney, Perth, Singapore and Hong Kong and a global information network. The backbone of the company is a staff of 300, embracing numerous nationalities, cultures and professions, specializing in petroleum geology, geophysics, petroleum engineering, economics, political science, petroleum legislation, cartography, computer science and information technology. http://www.ihsenergy.com

In 1995, Petroconsultants published a report for oil industry insiders ($32,000 per copy) titled WORLD OIL SUPPLY 1930-2050 which concluded that world oil production could peak as soon as the year 2000 and decline to half that level by 2025. Large and permanent increases in oil prices were predicted after the year 2000. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm -- http://dieoff.com/page116.htm

2005
Published petroleum experts -- using various methodologies -- Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, and Albert Bartlett all expect a "peak" in "conventional oil" around 2005. Moreover, the CEOs of Agip, ENI SpA, (Italian oil companies) and Arco have both published estimates of peak in 2005. So it seems like a reliable estimate.

Campbell and Blanchard say that Norwegian production (the second largest export) is at "peak" now and set to enter long-term decline. Colombia and Venezuela are apparently well past their peaks and now in long-term decline. Mexico will probably peak this year at the midpoint of depletion.

The latest estimates by country can be found at http://dieoff.com/campbell.htm  -- http://dieoff.com/campbell.pdf  -- http://dieoff.com/campbell.xls -- http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/

THE NORTH AMERICAN NATURAL GAS "CLIFF"
Gas production is better described as a "plateau" followed by a "cliff" due to the high mobility and recovery of gas. Whereas oil declines slowly as it moves through the porespace of the rocks under declining pressure, the decline of gas is a cliff -- not a slope. The gas market gives no warning of the cliff because it is no more expensive to produce the last cubic foot than the first.

Canada currently makes up about 13% of the U.S. gas supply. US and Canadian production is at or near (< 10 years) its "cliff" now. http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/NatGasCan/opipaper.pdf  -- http://dieoff.com/nagas.htm  --  http://dieoff.com/pp.htm

Canadians export most gas to the US under short-term contracts. Moreover, a vague law allows them to rein in the petroleum trade whenever it appears to be in their interest (and making the US pay dearly was in their interest in the late 70s). http://www.neb.gc.ca/pubs/nebactp6.htm

Campbell says that it is not practical to make up the US gas shortfall by shipping it in from the Middle East (shortage of LNG facilities, tankers, and an estimated 15 to 30 percent energy loss). However, the construction of a new gas line to Alaska and the Canadian arctic where there probably are large untapped deposits could temporarily mitigate the US gas cliff.

CANADIAN OIL SANDS (BITUMEN)
The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board estimates that production from Canada's oil sands will be extremely slow (100 to 200 years for all of it). It is also worth noting that the processing of heavy oil and bitumen in Canada has used cheap, stranded gas. This gas is probably not going to be stranded or cheap much longer, which will reduce the economics of the heavy oil and bitumen extraction.

US COAL
US coal is expected to become an energy "sink" -- not worth digging out of the ground -- by 2040.

OCEANIC HYDRATES
Laherrere has provided a new paper that shows that there is no evidence from all the worldwide research and extensive coring for any massive hydrate deposits. http://dieoff.com/page192.htm

POSITIVE FEEDBACKS -- WITH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
The rising energy costs (increasing extraction effort) and rising economic costs of oil set up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as the costs of oil increase, the costs of everything else increase too -- including other forms of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal extraction.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
H.T. Odum's "eMergy" ("eMbodied energy") measures the work that went into making a product or service, and is different from a measure of present energy content. When renewable energy systems are evaluated, both inputs and outputs must be converted to solar eMergy and compared. The difference between the eMergy input and the eMergy output is known as the "net eMergy".

In order to be "sustainable", an energy system must produce enough net eMergy to reproduce itself. For example, calculations show that solar cells consume twice as much eMergy as they produce. So even if all the energy produced was put back into production, then one can only build half as many cells each generation -- they are not sustainable. Even if the energy efficiency of solar cells doubled, ALL of the energy produced by would have to be used to manufacture new cells, which still leaves a zero net benefit to society!

"Net energy" for solar cells may be improving but "net solar eMergy" may be getting worse because there are ten different sets of equations to convert energy to solar eMergy. The only way to know is to DO THE STUDY. http://dieoff.com/emergy.pdf

Odum's eMergy calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuel are biomass (burning 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 eMergy to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

The fact that our society can not survive 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.

[ If you are interested in more specific details, read the messages at http://www.egroups.com/messages/energyresources or write to me at mailto:j@qmail.com ]

---

A LETHAL EDUCATION

Economic students are taught that banks "create" money every time they make a loan, and that the economy is powered by money instead of energy. The juxtaposition of these two data (the first is true, the second is false) leads even Nobel Prize-winning economists to conclude they have discovered a perpetual-motion machine!

No person has had a greater influence on the thinking of experts who have become government regulators of the world's oil and gas industries than economist Morris Adelman: "There are plenty of fossil fuels and no limit to potential electrical capacity. It is all a matter of money."

But Adelman -- and every government regulator he has ever influenced -- is wrong. It is a matter of energy! (The only source of energy in money is the medium itself, and a $100 bill contains no more energy than a $10 bill.)

ENERGY LAWS: PERPETUAL MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE
Although economists treat energy just like any other resource, it is not like any other resource. Available energy is the prerequisite for all other resources. Moreover, universal energy laws tell us that the economist's perpetual-motion machine is impossible.

To lift 15 kg of oil 5 meters out of the ground requires 735 joules of energy just to overcome gravity -- and the higher the lift, the greater the energy requirements. The most concentrated and most accessible oil is produced first; thereafter, more and more energy is required to find and produce oil. At some point, more energy is spent finding and producing oil than the energy recovered. Thus, Adelman is wrong: it is not all a matter of money.

Empirical studies on Louisiana oil fields suggest that oil wells and fields are "energy losers" before they become "money losers" and are closed down .  http://dieoff.com/page197.htm  It's important to note that this is the last 10% or 15% that is PRESENTLY BEING RECOVERED.  Thus, if a typical field recovery is 33%, then only about 30% of a field probably provides net energy.  If so, then no more energy can be produced from these fields no matter how high the price of oil!! 

Neither capital nor labor nor technology can "create" energy (the first law of thermodynamics). Instead, available energy must be spent to transform existing matter (e.g. oil), or to divert an existing energy flow (e.g., wind) into more available energy. The engines that actually do the work in our economy (so-called "heat engines"; e.g., diesel engines) waste 50 percent of the energy contained in their fuel (the second law). Thus, Adelman is wrong again: there is a physical limit to potential electrical capacity.

Economists everywhere are wrong: perpetual economic motion is impossible!

NEARLY EVERYONE IS WRONG!
Nearly everyone in the world (all governments, and all but a handful of scientists, etc.) has accepted the economists' perpetual-motion machine. Even the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy has no idea how much energy is required to produce energy ("net energy"). Nor does the EIA have any idea how fast energy can be produced ("peak")!

But even a child can understand that machines do not run on money -- they run on energy ("daddy's car needs gas!") -- and available energy is a prerequisite for producing more energy.

Once the truth is told, no one will ever believe that the energy experts in the Clinton Administration were just too stupid to see it coming; too stupid understand these simple energy principles that can be taught to a child...

SURPRISE!
The sudden -- and surprising -- end of the fossil fuel age will stun everyone -- and kill billions. Once the truth is told about gas and oil (it's just a matter of time), your life will change forever.

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.

Envision a world utterly destroyed by a lethal education:

"Should we be taking steps to limit the use of these most precious stocks of society's capital so that they will still be available for our grandchildren?  Economists ask, Would future generations benefit more from larger stocks of natural capital such as oil, gas, and coal or from more produced capital such as additional scientists, better laboratories, and libraries linked together by information superhighways?  in the long run, oil and gas are not essential."
-- Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus

"The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ... economics is a form of brain damage."
-- Hazel Henderson
[ More on economics at http://dieoff.com/page185.htm ]

Jay - http://www.dieoff.org

---

Subscribe to the BRAIN FOOD mailing list by sending a blank message to mailto:feedme@chatzilla.com

-- homo-extinctus (homo-extinctus@xox.xox), September 23, 2000

Answers

Nature correcting herself, reality seeks balance.

So... enjoy your chrome and cheeseburgers.

The herd never stirs until the grass grows thin.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 23, 2000.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...we're all gonna die, whup-tee-frickin-doo, where have I heard that before?

Guess what, I'm gonna die anyhow, til then I'm going to drive my SUV.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 23, 2000.

Extinct one:

You should get the author to look at the actual numbers. If you look at population growth curves things like the plague had no effect on total population growth. Just a minor blip.

Unc: you and your SUV. I have an SUV [now has new tires free] and a 4X4 pickup. I'm with you on this one.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 2000.

Unc,

Yeah,, kill it all. while we're at it let us piss all over the kids too just for the hell of it!

Actually ,,, fuck it.. let's nuke it all and then we won't have to worry at all,,because you're just going to die anyway right? Or are you dead already?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 24, 2000.

Who said anything about pissing on kids? You are such an asswipe.

Come to think of it, you are advocating mass murder! Asshole! Why do you include me in your assholish schemes? Just because I have heard "Oh we are doomed, Y2K, Global Warming, Floride, energy deficit is going to kill us" I should do what? Go live in a fucking hole? Eat me dipshit, I'm done listening to every "Woe is me" horsetale.

Yeah, I'm gonna die, and when gas gets to $17 a gallon folks will stop driving their SUVs, except for me, I'm gonna drive that bitch till the wheels fall off, then I'm gonna get new wheels.

Until then, bite me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 24, 2000.

Plague a blip? Yup. Z is right... although it was about a century long blip in Europe (where we have decent stats).

Famine is the big population suppressant. Usually it is famine related to carrying capacity reduced by climate change or desertification. However, since many of the Green Revolution techniques rely on artificial fertilizers derived from oil, a steep drop in oil production is likely to lead to widespread famine in Asia and much higher prices in the USA.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 24, 2000.

Unc

I think that gas for your SUV would be better off in a farm tractor...you know to feed future *kids* but you obviously don't.

The choice is that simple, but you have your right to consume so go for it.

As far as eating you goes, I think your enemies have already calculated what the rendering capacity requirements for America are. You do know what rendering means,, don't you.?

Name-calling, the last refuge for the *consumers*.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 24, 2000.

That was my evil twin, ignore him.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 24, 2000.

dammit Z -- there are no LT 235/75/15's to be found ANYWHERE. grumble-grumble firestone freebies :-)

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), September 24, 2000.

dammit Z -- there are no LT 235/75/15's to be found ANYWHERE. grumble-grumble firestone freebies :-)

Try here: eTires.com

-- Don't Make Assumptions (question@everything.xxx), September 24, 2000.

Thanks Don't Make Assumptions:

Now we know what happened to all of those OEM tires that were rejected. :^) You know that they weren't all Firestone; don'tcha.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 2000.

Don't you shallow people know that those new tires suck up valuable oil? Producing those tires uses energy, energy that could be used to feed future generations? Shame!

In the meanwhile....people who drive SUVs are evil, like me. But there is hope for the world, hope for the environment, hope in the form of Al Gore and Hillary. They care deeply about this issue, and fly all around the US on huge gas guzzling private aircraft telling us so.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 25, 2000.

I went to Boeing and checked out some specs.

Just one "Fill 'er up" of Air Force One uses enough gas (yes, I know it's not the same kind of "gas") for me to drive my SUV some 900,000 miles!

Sorry, I don't feel even the slightest bit guilty for driving my car, not one bit.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 25, 2000.

-- Cleanup Crew (cleanup@cleanup.ooo), September 25, 2000.

Unc,

Now your getting into it! It is truly hopeless but so what? ......enjoy!!

I drive an evil smallish machine too, but rarely, to get food and wine mostly...

My point here is that it is good to use only what you need. Sure would hate to fill-up at the rendering plant.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 26, 2000.

Name-calling, the last refuge for the *consumers*.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 24, 2000.

Now I resent that remark you jerk^^^^^ ROFLMAO, at unc....Deedah, you are tooooo damnnnn funnny!!!!!!!

-- consumer- THE REAL ONE (shh@aol.com), September 26, 2000.