Why It's Going to Get Worse
4/9/11 20:36![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
peristaltor.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYes, that's a pretty goading subject line. It's supposed to be. Here's my backing evidence.
George Stephenson's Rocket, the first
commercially practical steam locomotive.
This is the beast that started it all, The Rocket. In 1829, this coal powered locomotive won the prize offered for practical mechanical means of conveyance. Coal had been fueling industrial production for a century prior to the Rocket; wind, captured by sails, had been bringing raw materials to and delivering finished goods from those coal-powered factories.
By the 1820s the choke point was overland transport. The distance between Liverpool's docks and Manchester's factories still had to suffer track cart deliveries at a horse team's pace.
The Rocket, clocked at 35 mph during the competition, would break the horse pace by an order of magnitude. It was the first time fossil fuel powered transport significantly. This event closely corresponds to another interesting factoid, one that until recently, bettered the lives of all of us:
This increase was due to a large part to the growing reliance society placed on replacing human and animal labor with mechanical. As mechanical labor grew, the time it took to accomplish traditional tasks fell, and made new accomplishments possible. As these tasks reduced our needed minimum of daily labor, hours were freed to pursue different labors, increasing the productivity of people everywhere.
This increased productivity led to increased wealth. An expanding economy, made possible by the shift from strict specie of gold and silver to wealth that recognized only a fraction of the held specie in fractional reserve lending, led to assumptions. Going over the recent history of economies, it seemed that growth could be infinite, since history had since 1820 allowed growth. There was, therefore, no real need to create a stable economy, since downturns were historically short-lived.
This is changing. Evidence of the peak extraction levels for both coal and oil are abundant; I will therefore not bore you with repetition. Knowledge of how this affects our economy, however, is not widespread. First, understand that (for the most part) governments do not print money. Banks do. Commercial banks issue new money whenever they lend, accepting assets as collateral and delivering in exchange credit and a contract to repay that credit. Since only the principal is created at the time of the loan, other loans taken by other people must continue to grow the money supply. If that doesn't happen and the economy stalls, previously good loans turn bad, leading to defaults that continue the process. Our economies are driven by a positive feedback mechanism: when times are good, the money supply grows quickly; when times are bad, it contracts quickly through cascading defaults.
Without access to the cheap energy that literally fuels our economies, though, we hit a stall that promises a fall.
What we need right now is not the next new source of motive fuel (though that would be nice). What we need is to systemically restructure our economies to allow for periods of graceful degradation, where the money supply can be supplemented by entities other than traditional lending institutions, and added in ways that do not exacerbate debt loads. Sadly, this needed overhaul appears daunting not just in scope, but well nigh impossible given the current schisms and struggles in which traditional political institutions find themselves embroiled.
Still, until these needed changes happen, don't expect anything but continuing recessions, as our heads bang again and again on the Gas Ceiling.
George Stephenson's Rocket, the first
commercially practical steam locomotive.
This is the beast that started it all, The Rocket. In 1829, this coal powered locomotive won the prize offered for practical mechanical means of conveyance. Coal had been fueling industrial production for a century prior to the Rocket; wind, captured by sails, had been bringing raw materials to and delivering finished goods from those coal-powered factories.
It is metaphorically satisfying to talk about threads being woven together when talking about cotton, but the thread that mattered to the Liverpool & Manchester Railway was made of iron: thirty miles of it, smelted, forged, and wrought in ironworks . . ., and laid down as rails between the two cities that were now producing, in their mundane way, more wealth in a year than the entire Roman Empire could in a century.
(William Rosen, The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention, Random House, 2010, p. 303.)
By the 1820s the choke point was overland transport. The distance between Liverpool's docks and Manchester's factories still had to suffer track cart deliveries at a horse team's pace.
The Rocket, clocked at 35 mph during the competition, would break the horse pace by an order of magnitude. It was the first time fossil fuel powered transport significantly. This event closely corresponds to another interesting factoid, one that until recently, bettered the lives of all of us:
From 1820 to 1970, over every decade, average real wages rose, enabling a rising standard of consumption. These 150 years rooted workers' belief that the US was a "chosen" place where every generation would live better than its parents. (Richard D. Wolff, Capitalism Hits the Fan, Olive Branch Press, 2010, p. 51.)
This increase was due to a large part to the growing reliance society placed on replacing human and animal labor with mechanical. As mechanical labor grew, the time it took to accomplish traditional tasks fell, and made new accomplishments possible. As these tasks reduced our needed minimum of daily labor, hours were freed to pursue different labors, increasing the productivity of people everywhere.
This increased productivity led to increased wealth. An expanding economy, made possible by the shift from strict specie of gold and silver to wealth that recognized only a fraction of the held specie in fractional reserve lending, led to assumptions. Going over the recent history of economies, it seemed that growth could be infinite, since history had since 1820 allowed growth. There was, therefore, no real need to create a stable economy, since downturns were historically short-lived.
This is changing. Evidence of the peak extraction levels for both coal and oil are abundant; I will therefore not bore you with repetition. Knowledge of how this affects our economy, however, is not widespread. First, understand that (for the most part) governments do not print money. Banks do. Commercial banks issue new money whenever they lend, accepting assets as collateral and delivering in exchange credit and a contract to repay that credit. Since only the principal is created at the time of the loan, other loans taken by other people must continue to grow the money supply. If that doesn't happen and the economy stalls, previously good loans turn bad, leading to defaults that continue the process. Our economies are driven by a positive feedback mechanism: when times are good, the money supply grows quickly; when times are bad, it contracts quickly through cascading defaults.
Without access to the cheap energy that literally fuels our economies, though, we hit a stall that promises a fall.
What we need right now is not the next new source of motive fuel (though that would be nice). What we need is to systemically restructure our economies to allow for periods of graceful degradation, where the money supply can be supplemented by entities other than traditional lending institutions, and added in ways that do not exacerbate debt loads. Sadly, this needed overhaul appears daunting not just in scope, but well nigh impossible given the current schisms and struggles in which traditional political institutions find themselves embroiled.
Still, until these needed changes happen, don't expect anything but continuing recessions, as our heads bang again and again on the Gas Ceiling.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 04:01 (UTC)I'm curious as to why you believe it's abundant. We're finding new oil and better ways to extract known, previous unattainable reserves daily. We won't see peak coal in our lifetimes.
Still, until these needed changes happen, don't expect anything but continuing recessions, as our heads bang again and again on the Gas Ceiling.
First, fuels aren't causing recessions. The easily-manipulated cost of gas certainly isn't helping, but it's not causing anything.
The issue is simpler than that - it's not the finite fossil fuels that are at fault, but the continued banging of our heads against nonviable alternative fuels and energy sources. The more we continue to push push push for "green" alternatives, sink billions into wind and solar options that have zero chance of becoming primary options for fuel, the less chance we have of moving to a truly viable alternative.
After all, if the government is going to give you billions to explore politically favorable alternatives, where's the incentive to branch out?
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 04:28 (UTC)What sources are you reading? Do they include energybulletin.net and theoildrum.com? Also, belief is the wrong concept to use; accepting the idea based on the evidence is the right one.
We're finding new oil and better ways to extract known, previous unattainable reserves daily.
Yes, but are we discovering enough to replace depleted reserves and maintain, if not expand production? Are we even producing enough to meet expanding demand?
We won't see peak coal in our lifetimes.
*snort* I'm 22 years older than you, so while I may not see peak coal in my lifetime, I wish I were around long enough to make you a bet that you'd see it in yours.
First, fuels aren't causing recessions. The easily-manipulated cost of gas certainly isn't helping, but it's not causing anything.
Argue that with David Hamilton at Econobrowser. His most recent post on the subject is Economic consequences of recent oil price changes (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/08/economic_conseq_2.html).
After all, if the government is going to give you billions to explore politically favorable alternatives, where's the incentive to branch out?
Like billions of dollars in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants? I actually think that was a good idea, mind you.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 06:14 (UTC)Also, regarding solar viability:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-artificial-light-harvesting-method-energy-efficiency.html
Advances are being made every year. At some point, likely in the near future, solar will be the most viable form of energy on the planet. That doesn't mean counting out coal, oil, nuclear, etc. They all have their pro's and con's and having a diverse mix of sources is necessary.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 06:16 (UTC)From the same paragraph you're quoting
Date: 5/9/11 07:24 (UTC)Unless my calendar is horribly wrong, that means Peak Coal supply is expected less than 15 years from now.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 13:04 (UTC)Of course not. We're talking mainstream assessments here.
Also, belief is the wrong concept to use; accepting the idea based on the evidence is the right one.
Right. That's specifically why I used the term "belief" to question the OP's position on peak oil.
Yes, but are we discovering enough to replace depleted reserves and maintain, if not expand production? Are we even producing enough to meet expanding demand?
Yes and yes. Much of our production is slowed down artificially due to international cartel-like activity such as OPEC or shortsighted energy policy like keeping ANWR off limits or dragging of feet in the gulf.
*snort* I'm 22 years older than you, so while I may not see peak coal in my lifetime, I wish I were around long enough to make you a bet that you'd see it in yours.
Throw it in a trust for my kids, then. d:-)
Argue that with David Hamilton at Econobrowser. His most recent post on the subject is Economic consequences of recent oil price changes.
Seems that we agree that it's a contributing factor, but not necessarily a cause.
Like billions of dollars in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants? I actually think that was a good idea, mind you.
The government offers loan guarantees for nuclear plants in one hand and so many restrictions on them that it makes no sense to pursue in the other? Not great incentive-making right there.
With that said, the focus has been on generally unreliable alternatives. That's where my criticism sits.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 13:05 (UTC)...no? How the hell did you get there from where I started?
What I'm saying is that pushing for alternatives like wind and solar is keeping us from getting actually viable alternatives, since researchers are likely to go to what is guaranteed money before exploring anything else.
Advances are being made every year. At some point, likely in the near future, solar will be the most viable form of energy on the planet.
I feel like I've been hearing this for decades.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 14:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 15:54 (UTC)Mainstream media have started recently to note oil's peak in 2005, which frankly surprised me. Anyone who ponders too long the implications of peak would rightfully panic, and the mainstream media don't make money if they cause a real panic. As for coal, read Richard Heinberg's "The End of Cheap Coal" for another perspective. From the article:
That last sentence encapsulates the predicament. The faster our economies grow, the faster energy demand grows. The opposite proves true; the less we can increase our energy consumption, the less our economies can grow.
Your note about the "push push push" misses the point. We pursue the wind and solar because they are present, they are available. At the present time, there is no "truly viable alternative."
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 15:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:01 (UTC)That they've noticed something does not necessarily mean it exists. You trust it exists, yet provide little to support it.
Your note about the "push push push" misses the point. We pursue the wind and solar because they are present, they are available. At the present time, there is no "truly viable alternative."
We pursue wind and solar at the expense of exploring actual viable options. That's the problem.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:03 (UTC)I would agree that wind and solar are not viable for replacing fossil fuels. As John Michael Greer noted, put a burning lump of coal in one hand, and hold your other hand open to the sun, and tell him which has more energy.
Still, coal and oil exist today. What are your thoughts for a truly viable replacement?
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:05 (UTC)Not sure one exists yet. We're not going to find it, however, if we keep pushing for wind and solar. Why would anyone who's got the manpower to find a viable alternative do so when there's free money for developing existing nonviable solutions?
Still, coal and oil exist today. What are your thoughts for a truly viable replacement?
We need to develop nuclear significantly. That's one viable alternative. Beyond that, I'm no scientist. I know we lack a reasonable viable alternative, and that we're incentivizing the wrong things.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:08 (UTC)I could blast you with references that you could explore at your leisure, but you seem curiously reluctant to accept even the notion of peak, so perhaps I shouldn't bother.
And again, I would love to know what you consider a "viable option." Please, provide one for us to consider.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:14 (UTC)The issue is that the peak oil advocates rarely count recoverable-but-prohibited sources. This is older, but this has a good bird's eye view of the situation (http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/peak-oil-panic).
I could blast you with references that you could explore at your leisure, but you seem curiously reluctant to accept even the notion of peak, so perhaps I shouldn't bother.
I'd love to see it. I'm reluctant because it appears to be a crank theory, but I can be convinced.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:18 (UTC)I agree, but only if we can embrace more fail-safe reactors. We never should have let the Navy dictate reactor design. Still, grid energy doesn't address the real problem, the lack of motive power (and the main thrust of my OP). Electrifying motive power would at best provide only a fraction of the needed conversion. Overhead lines and batteries are simply too expensive to be a one-to-one alternative. I say this both as someone who operates overhead line transport and one who has owned and operated a battery-electric vehicle.
Beyond that, you might have found the flaw in your argument when you admitted that you were no scientist. Neither am I, but all the scientists who speak about energy note that there is no viable alternative to coal, oil or nat gas. Which is why we are currently incentivizing not "the wrong things" but what's available.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:24 (UTC)Nuclear is already incredibly safe. This is exactly the sort of roadblock I'm talking about - it's the safest energy available, and yet it's still not "safe enough."
Which is why we are currently incentivizing not "the wrong things" but what's available.
We should cease incentivizing "what's available" in favor of research into possible replacements. Every dollar we waste on solar is money better used to develop something worthwhile.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:32 (UTC)The prohibited source argument is a bit of a red herring. What happens if those areas are attained and exploited? The economy grows for a time on that abundance, then. . . . Peak oil is basically a prediction that notes extraction cannot keep pace with demand. Getting back to the OP, demand drives economies.
I also noted near the bottom of the article a claim that Saudi Arabia is deliberately withholding production. If so, so what? Norway has done that since it discovered oil in the 1960s, and no one seems inclined to blame them for it. What obligation does any sovereign nation have to the consumption "needs" of any other nation? Should, for example, the US increase its coal mining to help China's economy? The rate at which nations decide to extract becomes the rate of extraction.
That said, there is evidence that the Saudi claim is not true, something I noted years ago (http://peristaltor.livejournal.com/54865.html). Saudi info is near the bottom, noting the two charts of drill count and extraction.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 16:40 (UTC)Every dollar we "waste" on solar is a dollar that isn't flushed down a toilet toward dubious claims of 70-mph carburetors and other crap that, quite frankly, didn't work in the 1970s and won't work now. That kind of thinking — the kind that dismisses the hard facts in favor of tomorrow's rainbows and pixies that will fix everything — is exactly the roadblock toward economic reform I mention above that, so far, absolutely no one has commented upon.
It may be why we're doomed.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 17:04 (UTC)*surveys the scale of historical time*
IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE COMFORTING?!
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 17:11 (UTC)Peak oil is more that available extractable resources are less than demand, specifically. Reaching the maximum possibility of extraction. We're clearly nowhere near that. Technology has improved, we're able to extract more oil from more places than we were before, and governments are being stingy with expanding drilling.
I also noted near the bottom of the article a claim that Saudi Arabia is deliberately withholding production. If so, so what?
...
That said, there is evidence that the Saudi claim is not true, something I noted years ago. Saudi info is near the bottom, noting the two charts of drill count and extraction.
It means that the retrievable oil is sitting there, and that delays peak. If Saudi Arabia is limiting extraction, that's not a sign of peak, it's a sign of protectionism for their cartel.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 17:39 (UTC)What about that phrasing proves different from what I said? If extractable resources are less than demand, demand cannot grow, and with it the economy. You are repeating what I say.
As to being "clearly" no where near that, I would posit that the level of extraction is, simply, the level of extraction. If it cannot increase, peak has arrived. It has not increased since 2005 (except briefly during the super spike of 2008, but that level quickly decreased both as limited wells ran dry and the lowered price made further expensive extraction unfeasible).
Again, if a sovereign nation wishes to limit the extraction of its natural resources, that is the sovereign nation's right. I would argue (given the data I linked earlier) that Saudi's posturing is more to reassure its customers. Ghawar is the last super field; if it is in decline, all familiar with extraction — scientists, that is — will realize we've peaked.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 17:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 18:17 (UTC)You see it as production. When production is artificially limited, that doesn't create a peak situation.
As to being "clearly" no where near that, I would posit that the level of extraction is, simply, the level of extraction. If it cannot increase, peak has arrived. It has not increased since 2005 (except briefly during the super spike of 2008, but that level quickly decreased both as limited wells ran dry and the lowered price made further expensive extraction unfeasible).
It can increase, but the political will doesn't exist, or it's more profitable to continue allowing the cartel to work its will. That doesn't mean the level of extraction cannot increase, just that it has not increased.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/11 18:28 (UTC)A lack of man/horse power will kill an economy, or at least stifle it. As an energy, the advent of steam and later combustion engines boosted the global economy everywhere that had access to it.
As we deplete coal/oil reserves the economy will stifle and eventually recede. No matter how good we are at finding new oil reserves, or re-extracting oil from previously depleted ones, these reserves are indeed finite on planet earth.
Newer sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, algae, etc) seem to have limited potential. Antiquated sources of energy (wood, oxen, donkey) are also limited. But no matter if we're talking about burning wood or utilizing the sun or having oxen... these resources are practically infinite. Trees grow, sun shines and oxen breed. Unlike fossil fuels, will never use up these resources. They will replenish up to a point. Unfortunately our need for energy is greater then their replenishing. Back to fossils.
The growth of a community (city) is limited by other resources. Land is a physical barrier to unlimited growth. Run out of land and growth stifles. The solution is to link land masses by bridges, or be more creative with the land available. Cities grow out first, then they grow up. Skyscrapers utilize the limited resource of land.
But resources are often abstract... like logistics. In the 19th Century many cities growth were stifled by a lack of potable water and safe removal of waste products. This is probably the most immediate threat to sustainability. Many populations truck waste far away for safe disposal and are finding clean water and food sources more expensive to utilize.
There's no lack of water. There's a lack of clean water and access to it. Some populations are desalinizing sea waters at great expense. Some are having to build new waterways to replace older ones.
But I would say the #1 resource that drives economies is population. Too small of a population and potential to grow is hampered. Too large of a population and growth is stressed. Sustainable populations could be better managed.