Message-ID: <000601bd770e$9bc88860$53745ecc@jay95> Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 17:42:01 -1000 From: Jay Hanson <mailto:j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: Net Energy To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
"..total coal resources of the Nation are large and
that utilization at the current rate will not soon
deplete them.... [EIA] estimated that the United
States has enough coal to last 250 years."
USGS Fact Sheet FS-157-96, July 1996
[ http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/nca/nca.html ]
USGS geologists do not consider "net energy" when computing the
size of an energy resource. From a net energy perspective, an
energy resource is "depleted" when it consumes more energy than
it produces -- when it changes from "source" to "sink".
According to Gever et al., 1991, p. 67, by 2040 it will require
more energy to mine domestic coal than the energy recovered.
In other words, if present trends continue, domestic coal will
be "depleted" (will become an energy "sink") in 42 years (not
250 years)! See the energy profit for domestic coal at:
http://dieoff.org/page122.htm
OIL
Global oil production is expected to "peak" in about seven
years. Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère, Scientific
American, March 1998 http://dieoff.org/page140.htm
NATURAL GAS
According to Campbell, 1997, p. 119, global natural gas
production is expected to "peak" a few years either side of 2020.
Also see Riva: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v97n3/mkh-new4.html
OIL SANDS
According to Youngquist (1997) it currently takes more energy
to mine oil sands than the amount of energy recovered. In other
words, oil sands are already "depleted".
OIL SHALE
"As of 1997 no oil from oil shale is being produced in the U.S...
or anywhere else." http://dieoff.org/page132.htm
"A variety of processes have been tried. All have failed. Unocal,
Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, and other companies and the U.S.
Bureau of Mines have made substantial efforts but with no
commercial results."
SOLAR
"Several studies indicate that to enjoy a relatively high
standard of living, our optimum human population should be
200 million or less (Pimentel et al., 1994a)."
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc/Pimentel2.html
With 100 million being "ideal": http://dieoff.org/page136.htm
ETHANOL
"Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources and
does not increase energy security. This is because considerably
more energy, much of it high-grade fossil fuels, is required to
produce ethanol than is available in the ethanol output.
Specifically, about 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon
of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol."
Pimentel: http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html
NUCLEAR
"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust,
at about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a
significant expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold
expansion widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile
Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl -- would out-run
readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both
deposits previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of
current demand, and known high concentration pockets that could
be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear
would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion
technology." p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD;
World Energy Council, 1993
FAST-BREEDERS
The US, UK, and France have all dropped their fast-breeders.
http://wedge.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/100197/health3_3230_body.html
POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP
The decreasing "net energy" of oil sets up a positive feedback
loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything,
as it becomes less "energy efficient", everything else will
also become less "energy efficient" -- including other forms
of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel
used in coal extraction.
Some alternate energy is presently being produced at a net energy
loss (e.g., oil sands and ethanol). This can only continue as
long as we can afford to subsidize it with cheap oil. Ironically,
some alternate energy is viable only as long as we don't need it!
THE ECONOMY
The analogy is having a motor scooter with a five gallon tank,
but the nearest gas station is 10 gallons away. You consume
more energy than you can bring back -- it's impossible for you
to cover your overhead (the money price of the gas is irrelevant).
You might as well put your scooter up on blocks because you are
"out of gas" -- permanently.
It's the same with the American economy: if as a country, we must
spend more-than-one unit of energy to produce enough goods and
services to buy one unit of energy, it is impossible for us to
cover our overhead. At that point, America's economic machine
is "out of gas" -- permanently.
The positive feedbacks of oil depletion are going to provide a
lot of unpleasant surprises in the next couple of decades.
Jay