Energy squeeze, Is it a trap, a cliff or just a simple adjustment?

Tom Murphy writes on his Do the Math blog

Many of us have great hopes for our energy future that involve a transition to a gleaming renewable energy infrastructure, but we need to realize that we face a serious bottleneck in its implementation. The up-front energy investment in renewable energy infrastructures has not been visible as a hurdle thus far, as we have had surplus energy to invest (and smartly, at that; if only we had started in earnest earlier!). Against a backdrop of energy decline—which I feel will be the only motivator strong enough to make us serious about a replacement path—we may find ourselves paralyzed by the Trap.....Politically, the Energy Trap is a killer. In my lifetime, I have not witnessed in our political system the adult behavior that would be needed to buckle down for a long-term goal involving short-term sacrifice. 

From Do the Math

This discussion  relates closely to the concept of Energy Demand On Energy Invested, EROEI, well elaborated in several papers by Charles S Hall and others, See for example
What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?

What is made clear is that we must look into the net energy supplied from various energy sources, and how much energy that we must supply "up front" to realise new energy production. Oil has had the magnificent EROEI 100:1, i.e. we have got 100 times as much energy from oil production than we use to get it. Nuclear power goes down to 10:1 and most biofuels are worse. What Tom Murphy discuss more closely is when this energy investment is needed up-front, to build up the infrastructure etc. Most of the "alternatives" to fossil fuel do require a lot of up front investment (nuclear, solar and wind). He shows that there will be a considerable squeeze on energy supply by all these up front investments.



The trap is bad enough in a scenario of non-growth of energy consumption, which to some extent reflects the situation in the “mature” economies of Europe and Japan. Globally, energy demand is actually still increasing a lot, see e.g. IEA’s prognosis. “In the New Policies Scenario – the central scenario this year – world primary energy demand increases by 36% between 2008 and 2035, or 1.2% per year on average. This compares with 2% per year over the previous 27-year period. In the New Policies Scenario, non-OECD countries account for 93% of the projected increase in global energy demand, reflecting mainly faster rates of growth of economic activity.”
(http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/factsheets.pdf)

Clearly the trap will be felt even more for economies in those stages of development…..


On the other hand, my understanding is that business investment rates in general are in the range of some 20%. Clearly most of those investments are not “energy-investments” per se, but they do have big implications for energy use, as they will reflect expectations of energy prices. I wonder if this will not partly mitigate the effect of the trap?

I believe there is a justification to state that energy is the currency of the world at large. It is energy that flows from the sun, that starts the whole cycle of life, and all our life is dependent that. In addition, all farming is about yielding energy, and ultimately our whole industrial society is based on access to cheap fossil fuel. If it were not for the coal pits in England, there might never had been an industrial revolution nor capitalism.

Earlier post relating to this

Dopamine, probably the most dangerous molecule on earth

Energy is the currency of the world

Energy: the big picture

 

and in Swedish about EROEI: 

Varför minskad tillgång till energi innebär kapitalismens död

(why reduced supply of energy spells the death of capitalism)

Dopamine, probably the most dangerous molecule on earth

"As production grows so does consumption and if there were no negative feedbacks both would grow to infinity. These negative feedbacks, pollution and depletion, exist, but arrive with a time delay; too late. The result is that you have badly depleted your resource and you must go back not just to the sustainability level, but to a much lower level in order to allow the resource to grow back. That's what we call collapse. In the end, it is caused by a molecule called dopamine, probably the most dangerous molecule on earth, perhaps even more than CO2!" says Ugo Bardi in an interesting post in his blog Cassandra's legacy.

I guess my own take is rather similar to Bardi's, perhaps slighty more pessimistic. I write in Garden Earth:

Of principal, environmental and even economic reasons, our future energy supply should be based on renewable energy. A panicky dismantling of our fossil fuel dependency may cause serious problems to society. It is nevertheless important, exactly because of that, that the transformation starts as soon as possible. Fortunately, some impulses for transformation came in the 1970s with the first oil crisis and more came with the oil prices hikes in the 2000s as well as with increasing awareness of the impact of climate change. There is no point in, not needed and also not possible to determine how much of our future energy mix that has to come from the sun, from wind, from hydroelectricity or from one or the other forms for biomass. We know quite well the draw-backs of large dams for hydro-power, and the use of water might also compete with the use for irrigation, which sets quite some limitations. We have not really figured out too many drawbacks from wind turbines, even if there are objections re impact on bird life, aesthetics etc. The main issue around biomass is the competition for land with farming and wild “nature”. For sure we need to expand the use of solar energy in all its three forms, and possibly some other hitherto unknown forms. In the longer term, it is likely that solar energy can provide us with most of the energy we need. Perhaps future photovoltaic cells can reach an efficiency of around 25 percent, which is double the current rate, and the cost of self-production[1] could come down to  between one or two cents per kWh (IIIEE 2007), ten percent of current price.  Nuclear power is not an interesting technology from an energy-efficiency perspective or from a safety perspective. It is a prime example of how something can be "profitable" because so many costs are externalised. It builds of exploitation of nature, other people and future generation and massive subsidies from society (in the form of infrastructure, research, insurance etc.). In addition, the complexity in technology and society that has to be there for operation of nuclear power is hardly desirable and not possible to guarantee over time. 

It was just natural for humans to have a predisposition for sweet food; energy was always short in supply and our predecessors were rarely in the risk zone for diabetes. In modern society, where sugar is cheap and abundant, however, the craving for sweets needs to be kept in check. The consequences of not doing it are fatal. It is the same for our society at large when it comes to energy. Fossil fuel is like we found an enormous bag of candy that someone left, and we just eat and eat. Too much cheap energy screws up the metabolism and we have to voluntarily restrict our use. Energy scarcity is the only “natural” limitation to a total human expansion and conquest of everything and we should be happy that energy is not in unlimited supply. With our tendency for exaggeration we most certainly will destroy the basis for our own survival with an unlimited supply says Janken Myrdal (2008) and I agree with him. If we first adapt ourselves to a non-expansionist way of living, then cheap and easily available energy can be a boon. But we certainly need to ensure that the energy poor of today can get more access to energy.

---

[1]       The cost for solar electricity that has been fed into the grid and then distributed will obviously be higher.

Renewables: Dangerously positive news

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday, by the IPCC. It also concludes that - The technical potential of renewable energy technologies exceeds the current global energy demand by a considerable amount—globally and in respect of most regions of the world
This and similar messages are reported by the Guardian,
Renewable energy world
Huffington Post
International Herald Tribune

And well, it is quite obvious that renewable energy, in particular solar energy, can provide us with more energy than we use. But the report fails to discuss at what price. And here I don't refer only to costs in money, but even more harm on nature. The harm of hydropower dams is well known, biofuels production has the potential to compete with food production etc. And so does solar. A photovoltaic element has an energy efficiency of something like 10-15 percent, while crops only bind 1% or 2% of the energy. And we can put up solar panels all over the place. Solar panels are already put up on prime agriculture land.

I have read the IPCC summary, and think it is a bit strange that all articles and press releases are taking up this figure of 80% of the energy from renewables. That is the result of the most positive of 164 scenarios, while the least positive says 15%, which is just slightly more than today (12%). In addition the most positive scenario also assumes that total energy consumption will increase very little in forty years, while all indications are that it will increase a lot. "In the New Policies Scenario – the central scenario this year – world primary energy demand increases by 36% between 2008 and 2035, or 1.2% per year on average. This compares with 2% per year over the previous 27-year period." says IEA.


I am a great fan of solar energy and also of other renewable energy forms. But I also see their limitations. It makes me worried when their potential is "oversold". I do think it is realistic that they could contribute 80% of energy in 2050, but only provided that there is substantial savings on total energy use, a net reduction of energy use; that energy prices are at least doubled and that governments abolish perverse subsidies for fossil fuel and redirect investments in renewable.

The effects of reports as the one above can rather be negative; it makes people believe, again, that technical solutions will be found, which allows us to continue with business as usual. And that is the real danger. Very few will read and analyze the real content of reports like this.

To save nature – with no nature

My latest posting was about that local food production is not always the best, and now this one is about that sometimes use of non-renewable resources can "save" on renewable resources. And before that I spoke for more nuances in how we look upon meat production. Am I leaving the environmentalist camp? Well, I am not so keen on being in any "camp" at all, but I certainly prefer the environmentalist camp over the other.  Having said that, I think it is best for us that we have a nuanced view of reality. The dogmas make it harder to find solutions.

The use of non-renewable resources has followed man since she became man, first in the form of stone for tools. There has been a dramatic shift of our production and consumption away from renewable sources to non-renewable sources, fossil fuel and minerals lately. By and large, this is a negative development as these resources, by definition, are not renewable, and will sooner or later run out. Sometimes the use of a mineral can lead to a substantially eased pressure on a renewable resource, however. One such example is the production of potash. Potash is a raw material used from the dawn of history in bleaching textiles, making glass, and in making soap. It is today also the basis for potash fertilizers and various food additives. In the 19th century, it became an important export product for countries like Canada and Sweden. Forest was cut down and put into big heaps and burnt, just to be able to extract the ash, which was the raw material for potash. Large tracts of forest were cut down in order to produce potash. The relationship was 1:1000, i.e. thousand ton of wood was needed to produce one ton of potash. As early as 1767, potash from wood ashes was exported from Canada, and exports of potash and pearl ash (potash and lime) reached 43,958 barrels in 1865. The industry declined in the late 19th century when large-scale production of potash from mineral salts was established in Germany (Ostlund 2009, Wikipedia 2011a). The example of potash shows how a wasteful use of natural, renewable resources could be replaced by a rather harmless use of mineral, non-renewable resources. There is also a movement between different materials. Asphalt is used instead of cobble stone, concrete instead of wood or stone, iron replace bronze and so forth. Substitution of raw materials is an ongoing process and human ingenuity is great if the price is high enough. This is however mainly true for minerals and other raw materials, but not to a very large extent for ecosystem services. Our ability to substitute for ecosystem services is very small, both because they are so complex and hardly visible and even more because they are for free – there are simply no incentives to “save” on them.