Big Oil: Energy independence is "naive"

These comments sound like ludicrous and self-serving remarks from the world's oil barons. And they are that, without a doubt. But there is also a disturbing amount of truth in them.

All non-nuclear power derives from the sun. Oil is nothing more than ancient sunlight, bound in chemical structure and concentrated by time, heat and pressure into a conveniently usable form. The remarkable thing about oil is its energy density (i.e. BTUs/pound). There is no naturally occurring, non-fossil fuel that comes even close to matching it.

This energy density is what makes oil so attractive as a fuel. It is also what makes it so very hard to replace. I have studied the options extensively, and I have not seen any non-fossil technology or combination of technologies that could credibly hope to scale up to replace our current use of oil.

To put it another way, our civilization has been living off an energy endowment from ancient times. Our domestic endowment is largely depleted, so energy independence would mean living off of current (solar) income. And just ask any trust-fund baby: it's a hard transition to make.

So it's not a simple matter of "where there's a will, there's a way", and it's not just a matter of applying American ingenuity. In fact, within the context of our current industrial, agricultural, and transportation systems, the Saudi is entirely correct: energy independence is unattainable.

My point here is not to be defeatist, but simply to try to bring a realistic perspective to the problem. If we want to enjoy the benefits of energy independence -- and they would be many and more -- we will have to make some tough decisions, and some sacrifices (though fewer than many would have you think).

Thing is, we're going to have to do it eventually anyway. Fossil fuels are going to be increasingly hard to get, and the environmental, social and economic costs are going to keep going up. Eventually, if we continue down our current path, these costs will become too heavy to bear and the system will start to break down. There is some credible argument that this process has already begun.

Bush said it right, but had it dead wrong: The American way of life is not negotiable. That is, we cannot negotiate to keep it. There is no amount of diplomacy or force that will allow us to continue as we are indefinitely. We can keep it going for a while -- how long is hard to say -- but at an ever increasing cost and decreasing real benefit to everyone except the power elite.

The addiction analogy is quite apt, in fact. Getting off this drug is going to be hard and painful, and looks impossible from where we stand now. But, as with any addiction, the longer we wait, the worse it will be.>

hmmm... when the Saudi Ambassador tells me to listen to Big Oil...

I just finished reading the chapter on the historic relationship between Standard Oil and Saudi/Wahabi Arabia in Stephen Schwartz's book, "The Two Faces of Islam." Pretty chilling stuff.

And, I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" on Sunday before going home to a night of torrential rainshowers and leaky roofs. I think it's time to stop listening to representatives of Saudi Arabia/Big Oil.>

We'd also be less dependent on oil if we reverted to hunting and gathering.>

Bubba:
Our massive consumption of oil fuels radical Islam and fuels global warming. Either reason by itself would be sufficient to change our ways. Most "conservatives" oppose doing anything about it out of fear of giving aid and comfort to Al Gore.
Also, I believe we can make substantial progress without reverting to being hunter-gatherers.>

Hardly anybody wants to face the facts, including and maybe especially most of the environmentalists who want us to cut back dramatically on energy consumption. Because almost nobody actually wants to get poorer and return to a far less technologically-based way of life. Sure, a lot of us say we do. But we envision ourselves somehow exempt from the negative consequences. You might say we're all Barbra Streisand now.

Most likely the facts will eventually force us to face them.>

I could respond to other things, but I am amazed by the implicit defense of hunting and gathering.

Clark writes, "I believe we can make substantial progress without reverting to being hunter-gatherers." That's a relief; does he think such reverting would bring about even more progress?

And JohnT writes, "I think the government has too much land tied up to allow full scale hunting and gathering."

If the government didn't have that land tied up, what then?

Life before the Agricultural Revolution was rightly described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Likewise, life before the Industrial Revolution was plagued with high infant mortality rates, short lifespans, famines, diseases, and -- well -- plagues.

Have y'all really counted the cost of the changes you support?>

Life before the Agricultural Revolution was rightly described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Likewise, life before the Industrial Revolution was plagued with high infant mortality rates, short lifespans, famines, diseases, and -- well -- plagues.

Have y'all really counted the cost of the changes you support?

Whether you like it or not. We will all be forced to address these changes. Oil is a non-renewable resource and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it.>

One more thing, during the 1970s oil crisis, Jimmy Carter cautioned that the oil will not be there for ever and that we will have to modify our lives and communities to be less dependence on fossil fuels. He proposed alternative nuclear energy. Then the Five Mile Island nuclear accident happened and Carter was voted out of office.

It is imperetive that nuclear power be addressed again.>

John, my apologies for missing our common ground in the belief that technology is at least a likely solution to our potential energy problems.

Brent, I look forward to hearing how nuclear energy isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels.>

Does driving a car qualify as "the exploitation and wholesale liquidation of God's creation"?>

Another book recommendation, "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil," by David Goodstein. Goodstein, a physics professor from Cal Tech, argues that oil will soon become to valuable to be used as a fuel.

Virtually our entire information-age tech society is based on petroleum products.

He theorizes that, as cheap oil becomes a thing of the past, many countries will be tempted to burn more fossil fuels, especially coal.
If this happens, he says that we could have runaway global climate change, and could end up with an atmosphere more like that of Venus. Take a deep breath, now, everyone.>

*chuckle* David Goodstein was my freshman physics prof. It's funny to see him getting so much press these days.

Oh, and it's spelled as one word: "Caltech". Sorry, pet peeve of mine :).>

Brent, I do try to be patient, but I must ask, if you have time to go into detail condemning us as sinners for raping the earth, could you please expedite your explanation on why nuclear power isn't--I mean, on whether nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels?>

BrentEubanks, you do not have a great grasp of what an "externalized cost" is in terms of forming energy/public policy. If you are a science snob you may want to read Peter Huber who can put any, if not all, of your concerns about technology and the "raping of the earth" to rest. He has (advanced) degrees from both MIT and Harvard Law. I'm certainly not going to try to disabuse you of your notions. let's just say that I wouldn't let your ideas about public policy influence my opinion on what is the spiritually proper way to live.>

David:

The term is "terrestrial iNsolation", meaning the amount of solar energy that actually hits the planet's surface (i.e. gets through the atmosphere).

Replies to Bubba, etc are forthcoming. I'm having net problems currently, so I'm not sure this posting will even work.>

Part 2, continuing previous post:


It's not the "unlimited future energy" that many people like to think. We've got maybe 100 years of nuclear fuel available, if we switched to it as a primary power source, at current rates of consumption. So at best you're just bequeathing our current set of problems (magnified) to our grandchildren.

There's one final reason why conservation must be our first resort, and no non-renewable power source is an effective long-term solution to our energy problems. You can't beat exponential growth. (That's two separare links, BTW)

Fortunately, there's of waste that we can eliminate through good design. Given how phenomenally inefficient we are, it's really silly to talk about developing vast new sources of energy. We've got plenty of energy. We're just not using it very effectively.>

Brent

Maximizing energy use is where technology can be effectively applied. This is the point from the earlier post.

I don't think efficiency in this cause is anti-crunchy either.>

Kathleen,

I read Huber's How Cities Green the Planet just now. I'm not impressed. He's not the first ecologically illiterate techno-optimist cornucopian I've encountered, and I'm sure he won't be the last. His essay demonstrates that he precisely does not understand what an externalized cost really is.

But, please, direct me to some of his more enlightened material, if you would. Something that specifically relates to externalized cost, if you can.

Incidentally, I think he's half-right: Cities are the key to sustainability and protecting the environment.>

Brent, if you don't think Huber understands "externalized costs", then I'd be interested to hear what your working definition of "externalized cost" is....maybe the mistake is yours and not his.

I think your difference with Huber is you don't understand what he considers external. for instance, there are clearly ways of "internalizing" costs legislatively and regulatorily. If you didn't go to law school, you might not know that this stuff is studied ad nauseam in all regulatory contexts but especially environmental and energy law. (and law means policy)

Huber is "ecologically illiterate"? well, of course. (love that word, "ecology" -- so all encompassing as to be really vague but also really preachy -- kind of like Rod's use of "crunchy") i think maybe your use of the word of "ecolog[icall]y" is what is technically illiterate.

try getting your hands on some Huber law review articles. he is more hardcore policy wonk in those. and he is a great writer so it's not your typical law review legalese.>

Bubba, it's tpyical crunchy argumentation. I have been addressed with similar nonsequiturs, e.g., "Kathleen, have you ever in your life ever tasted -- I mean REALLY TASTED -- a REAL tomato?" the underlying assumption being I must not know what a REAL tomato tastes like or else I couldn't possibly be arguing what I am arguing.>

JohnT:

I was throwing you a nice softball to start a dialogue on what I thought would be a nice non-threatening thread. I was kind of hoping Rod would jump in and dialogue with us. Then you could have your discussion. I thought the energy topic would be neutral ground.

That's cool. To be clear, I wasn't criticizing any of the three of you for directing your posts toward me in particular (though Clark's didn't strike me as all that substantive).

I just didn't understand it. :)


To answer your question seriously, I do think the spread of the lifestyle that focuses on the local community would reduce our dependence on petroleum. I'm not sure this particular fact outweighs the negatives of such a lifestyle, negatives that are rarely addressed by the crunchies.

And, it begs all sorts of questions about the goal of society. Brent seems to think that the goal is integrating ourselves seemlessly into the ecosystem, I guess to ensure our survival. I think I understand and respect that goal, though I don't think Brent's pessimism about technology is justified, I don't think the ecosystem is all that fragile (it survived in conditions both colder and warmer than the present; and billions of years ago, the oxygen that plants produced was a waste product), and I honestly think that a more sensible plan for humanity's long-term survival is to colonize other planets, not to be really, really at home in this one.

But, at any rate, I don't think that individuals' lives should be ordered for the sake of society; society should be ordered for the sake of individual lives. It should provide an environment in which liberty can flourish, even if that means some people abuse their freedom, because that is the only environment in which the loving, symbiotic relationships of the family and the church can grow.

One problem (out of many) I have with Rod's sensibility is that it seems to prioritize a community that resembles the whitewashed past of Norman Rockwell -- a past that didn't exist quite that ideally, and a past that is probably truly in our past, given how technology has changed the cultural landscape -- with little regard for the individuals in it and their right to make their own choices and live their own lives. You see this more clearly with the vitriol with which Caleb Stegall wrote in the Crunchy Cons blog at NRO, calling those who move away from home selfish and those who live in the suburbs cowards, but the only thing I see that separates Stegall from Rod on this lines is tact, not principle.>

I thought I was done with this thread, but I guess not. :) That's cool; it's been an interesting discussion.

To clarify my original statement to Bubba, my comment that he did not know what he was talking about was specifically in response to his suggestion that I holding a bias based in ignorance (though I sense a certain amount of reluctance even to see if this is a problem technology can solve). In fact, my opinion is based on quite a bit of research.

We also have a difference of opinion about the role that technology can play in the solution, but that's a different matter. Sorry for being ambiguous.

As to other points:

Brent seems to think that the goal is integrating ourselves seemlessly into the ecosystem, I guess to ensure our survival.

Roughly accurate. I don't think our integration can be seamless. We will change the ecosystem, and that's fine. I just want it to be based on respect and responsible stewardship.

The goal here is more than survival. I believe that a respectful partnership with the planet can take us down the path to long-term equitable prosperity.

Humans historically have a negative impact on the environment, but it doesn't have to be that way. To quote Bill McDonough: "This idea that we have to have a smaller footprint is ridiculous. We need to make bigger footprints, but we need to leave behind wetlands."


I think I understand and respect that goal

Glad to hear it. Too many people (mostly, but not all, conservative) have sheer contempt for the natural world. I'm glad you're not one of them.


though I don't think Brent's pessimism about technology is justified

Maybe, maybe not, though I think I come by my pessimism honestly. I've done alot of R&D and prototype development work.


I don't think the ecosystem is all that fragile (it survived in conditions both colder and warmer than the present; and billions of years ago, the oxygen that plants produced was a waste product)

The living planet itself is quite robust. Nothing we are likely to do is going to wipe out life on Earth.

The current ecosystem configuration, on which we depend for life, is another matter. It is also quite robust and flexible, but its rate of adaptability is limited. Humans (especially technological humans) change on a much faster timescale than the natural world.

Of course, nature can adapt to catastrophic changes and has done so historically. But such circumstances tend to be really unpleasant for the dominant species on the planet.

This isn't about "saving the world" or "saving nature". It's about saving humanity (most specifically, technological human civilization). Secondarily, it's about not heedlessly destroying timeless natural beauty for the sake of short-term convenience.


I honestly think that a more sensible plan for humanity's long-term survival is to colonize other planets, not to be really, really at home in this one.

I share this dream too. I think humanity's destiny lies with the stars, and I always have.

But I also have a realistic sense of the challenges invovled. I've worked in aerospace, and I've designed rocket engine combustion chambers (for the late, lamented Rotoary Rocket). Cheap space access is no simple thing, until or unless we have the technology to build a beanstalk. (And that's a whole 'nother level of technology. A beanstalk failure could wipe out civilization.) And once we get out there, buildling a self-sufficient habitat is a challenge that we've barely begun to address. The failure of Bioshpere 2 makes that emminently clear.

Space is (hopefully) our long-term destiny, but it is not a solution to our immediate, short-term problems.


But, at any rate, I don't think that individuals' lives should be ordered for the sake of society; society should be ordered for the sake of individual lives.

Here, we are entirely in agreement. The challenge is to balance the individual's right of free action and choice against the effects that their choices have on other individuals, who must similarly be allowed to enjoy these rights. A growing population makes this increasingly difficult to do in a just and equitable fashion.


One problem (out of many) I have with Rod's sensibility is that it seems to prioritize a community that resembles the whitewashed past of Norman Rockwell -- a past that didn't exist quite that ideally, and a past that is probably truly in our past, given how technology has changed the cultural landscape

I can't speak for Rod, but this is not and has never been my vision. I do believe the clear path forward must be informed by some wisdom of the past. I think that, to survive and prosper, we will have to reconnect to things that used to be central in our lives and have more recently fallen away, like food production and community. But the future I hope for will be a creative marraige of low technology and high technology. It looks like nothing that has ever come before in human history.>

Back online after several days gone, I'm not sure anyone is going to see this, but I'll post it anyway.

Though, Brent, I would say that most conservatives do not hold the natural world in contempt; it is that we believe that no non-human organism enjoys equal rights with humans

Right. Non-human organisms aren't moral entities with self-consciousness and free will, and thus applying the concept of "rights" to them is not appropriate. However, I would assert that we, as moral entities, do have an responsibility (as well as a practical incentive) to respect these other organisms and their place in the web of life. That's not the same as saying they have rights. But it does place some appropriate restraints on people's freedom of action.

I think alot of the conflict between "liberal" environmentalists and "conservatives" hinges on failing to understand this subtlety.


and that we are deeply suspicious of modern, militant environmentalism as it may be rooted in philosophies that look at humans as a disease, and it may serve as a cover and justification for massive government expansion.


As someone who's right in the middle of the environmentalist movement, I would say that there are distinct differences of perspective on this. What I think of as "old school" environmentalism focuses on proscrptive regulation and tends to look at human activity as a problem that must be controlled. They also tend to focus on symptom-level issues rather than fundemental causes; e.g. individual species protection, rather than ecosystem protection. Much of our current environmental legislation is built on this way of thinking.

More recently, a different approach has been gaining ground. Adherents of this philosophy are more interested in measures that effectively address underlying causes, and are generally more willing to embrace the market as a potential force for good.

Bill McDonough, who notes that "[the need for] regulation is the first signal of design failure", is one of the chief proponents of this point of view. I highly recommend this video of his presentation at Bioneers, if you want to understand where this approach is coming from. They are in Quicktime .mov format, in small and large versions. (Use QT 7 to view the larger one; any version of QT works with the smaller one.)

But, anyway, if you do have a moment, could you write a word or two more about fusion, whether you see it in a sustainable future and, if not, why not?

Alot of good technical material on fusion is available at Wikipedia, including some discussion of the technical challenges.

If we can work out the technical challenges, I think that fusion could have a very significant role to play in a long-term sustainable future. Even if we maximize renewables and distributed generation, we will need some grid base load capacity. Currently our primary options for that are coal and fission; fusion would be much superior to either one.

However, I don't see fusion as being of immediate interest in addressing our energy woes, simply because there is no good reason to believe that it is going to be ready in time to help with the immediate crisis. Even if they overcame all the technical challenges to achieving sustained breakeven tomorrow, it would still take 10+ years to develop practical utility scale generation systems. And we've been bouncing off the barriers of breakeven and sustained reaction for decades, so they're not likely to get there really soon.

So fusion is great, but it's not going to help us address our immediate crises. And we do face immediate crises, make no mistake. There is more than ample evidence that we are approaching the world peak of oil production. This doesn't mean an end to oil, just an end to cheap oil. But cheap oil is precisely what our industrial system was built on, and adapting away from that resource is not a short-term process. SAIC's Robert Hirsch reports that it will take us 20 years to adapt away from our dependence on petroleum. Production peak may be occurring now, and will almost certainly occur within 10 years, so we're a bit behind the curve.

Even if you don't believe that peak oil is an immediate concern, our depedence on oil is intimately connected with all kinds of horrible human rights abuses, in the Middle East, in Nigeria, and elsewhere in the world. The stuff's a cultural poison.>