In this slim and subtly illustrated volume Dr. Goodstein, physics
professor and vice provost at Caltech, explains in clear and simple terms
why the fossil fuel age is coming to an end.
A “massive, focused commitment” is needed to develop alternatives, and
every year of delay in that commitment adds immeasurably to future
human suffering.
In years, or at best a decade, we will reach the global “Hubbert’s peak”
for conventional oil, when production starts to decline even with rising
demand. Such a peak was reached for US production in 1970.
“Foreign oil” has sustained us until now, but Goodstein shows
why it cannot for much longer.
A number of books on this subject have come out in recent years,
some very pessimistic about the future (for example Heinberg’s
“The Party’s Over”, which warns of a greatly decreased
world population). Goodstein offers some hope in alternatives,
substantially based on the analysis of climate scientist and space solar
power advocate Martin Hoffert.
Solar-based renewables and fusion are the only long-run energy
solutions. According to Goodstein, natural gas and nuclear
fission can help tide us over. All of these have problems,
with the most scalable (solar power from space) still the least mature.
The longest chapter discusses thermodynamics
and the physical laws that explain usable energy and
its relation to entropy. As a physicist, I was pleased and surprised to
learn something from Goodstein’s clear explanation here.
Goodstein also discusses global climate problems with continued use
of fossil energy, particularly an increasing dependence on coal.
He concludes: “Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime
in this century unless we find a way to live without fossil fuels.”
We can only hope our economic and political leaders read and
understand this plain-speaking scientific prophet.
The Hubbert curve and technique of backdating oil reserves were brought to national attention by a 1998 article in Scientific American by Campbell and Laherrere. The simultaneous and huge increase in oil reserve estimates made by the OPEC members is especially interesting. Another good source of info is the poster by Magoon of the USGS (sorry, pdf or huge ps file only).
Paul Krugman talks about $40/barrel oil and the coming crunch in today’s New York Times.
After the Shah fled Iran, oil reached prices that, adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, were $100/barrel. Things could get much worse.
Today’s economy is far more dependent on oil – our infrastructure is based on trucking and shipping that all rely on oil. Cars are crucial to daily life. Plastic is indispensible. The shockwaves from the Shah fleeing would have been much more limited because oil was not as important.
I seem to recall some trouble in Iran under the Carter administration…
But what’s a couple of decades more or less, eh?
…go to http://www.pkarchive.org/ and click on Columns, then click on The Oil Crunch.
$40/barrel? Good, that’s more than the estimate of what a barrel of manufactured oil will cost. Dump trash, garbage, plants, or tires in then depolymerize, and get oil and natural gas out.
The carbon from biological matter which is used to make this oil comes from the atmosphere, through plant growth. So this is actually recycling of carbon dioxide, powered by solar energy.
to make more oil this way? The net energy payback is the big question with all the alternatives to “conventional” oil. For conventional oil the payback ratio in the past was 10 or more. For the alternatives it’s much closer to 1 – and for some bio-fuels its arguable that it even reaches 1 (i.e. you’re putting more energy in than you get out of the process). That’s fine if you’re talking about a way to store energy, like hydrogen. But not if you’re trying to replace oil.
What it means is that your production actually has to be much higher (if the ratio is 1.3 say, then it has to be 3.3 times higher) than you would expect, to get the same net energy. And costs are that much higher too. And land use etc. etc.
For a lot of these, high cost “per barrel” is a proxy for the high energy inputs required.
spend five seconds figuring out what the actual link is and posting it.
http://www.ethanol.org/Information/ethanol_information.htm
I think science will provide a solution when needed, it just may be one we don’t expect.
.
I would look for energy-crunch solutions to come from the government first, in the form of mandatory car-pooling, further emissions and fuel efficiency regulations, calls for more public transportation, and increased investment in research for alternatives. The stupid legislatures will take the public indignation at high prices as an endorsement to mandate “relief”.
Whichever plan of action is taken, however, it will probably be considered draconian when it will really turn out to be just a stopgap measure. Remember that the first obligation of each Congressperson is to thier district’s welfare (translated, PORK) and the second is to vote thier conscience (translated, campaign fund donator’s wishes). Their third activity is to present their own efforts in the most favorable and publicity-evoking light (translated, convoluted political double-speak).
I’m glad I’m retired in a western Metroplex (DFW) where I don’t have to worry about transportation — I can always saddle up a horse…
jon
…now appears a longer version of apsmith’s review — http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/15/1446255