Dark is the night, and darkest before dawn – or so the saying runs. But what is blackest? How do we know that it will not get darker? A hundred years ago, had there been a satellite photograph of the earth at night most of it would have been black. Perhaps a few sprinkles of light in Europe and the East Coast of North America – and little elsewhere.
Our lit world with light blazing at night, so that the children of the city don’t know what true darkness is, is a product of technology. More than that, it is a product of energy – no energy, no light. Light on demand, light for the masses, is a modern artifact of technology and cheap energy – of massive infrastructure – a power line to every house, a network of staggering size and scope which we, who grew up with it, no longer appreciate. We neither marvel at the miracle of light and heat nor do we comprehend the magnitude of the accomplishment. Taking it as our birthright, as a form of magic, we do not pay attention to the fact that it is indeed a bright moment that did not exist in the past and need not exist in the future. It is an artifact and it is neither eternal nor even all that durable, but requires constant upkeep, repair, expansion and new power.
For years that power has come from a few sources. Coal, oil, hydroelectric power, nuclear. They still account for most of the energy used in North America – and in China, where coal laden skies are the price of light, warmth and the cooling blast of air conditioners.
Most of the power we use is non-renewable. There is a certain amount of coal and oil in the world, but worse than that the easy stuff is disappearing. Just as when you chop down trees to burn in the fireplace, the first oil, the first coal, the first uranium, the rivers swollen with the most rain – those are the first sources of power we have exploited. As the easy stuff disappears we must find the coal that is deeper inside the earth, the oil that does not gush by itself to the surface, and dam the smaller rivers till we come down to streams.
Specialists in energy extraction – mostly chemists and geologists, call it the energy profit ratio. If it takes one barrel’s worth of oil energy to obtain four barrels of oil you’ve got a ratio of 4. If it takes one to produce 30 (the Saudi ratio), it’s thirty. In Canada’s oil sands the ratio is closer to the 3/2 – three barrels of oil for every two you expend. Nuclear power’s ratio is around 4 – at least on the older style reactors.
It’s not just an academic point – it’s at the heart of what we’re facing. The lower your ratio the more economic activity has to be spent getting energy – and that economic activity isn’t being used to add value, just to satisfy the basic requirements of living and production.
So when you hear talk of the end of cheap oil what we’re really talking about is the ratio of energy in to energy out – and it’s not just about oil, though MidEast oil had a great energy ratio – we’re talking about all energy sources. As we use up the best it will take more and more energy to produce the energy we need.
This extends all through the system – coal, for example, is much harder to transport than gas – China is trying to move to more oil, from coal, not only because of the environmental problems but because most of their railway capacity is tied up doing nothing but hauling coal from one place to another. Those additional movement costs have to go into the energy ratio.
The agricultural revolution was less an agricultural revolution (though the new seeds certainly helped) than it was an energy revolution – energy used for farming increased massively over the last century – tractors, pesticides and fertilizers (mostly made from petrochemicals) increased energy input by magnitudes. This allowed many fewer workers to produce even more food on the same amount of land and those people flooded to the city, where, freed from the need to farm, they produced goods and services that would never have occured if they had been chained to the soil.
But while this was happening something else was occurring: the fertility of the soil was dropping and food production was increased only by increasing energy inputs – indeed while absolute numbers have increased, output per unit of energy in has declined. The energy ratio for food production is down – it has dropped staggering amounts. In part this is because, again, you have to consider more than what happens on the field – all the processing we do on food and all the transport (fruit and vegetables of every kind all year round) has energy costs as well.
Oil is a dragon’s hoard of gold. Almost literally, it is the decayed remnants of beasts long dead – the gooey remains of life and it is incredibly valuable stuff. We have used that hoard to give ourselves lifestyles that would be the envy of the Kings of old – but like any found wealth we have been spending our way through it.
Take another analogy – if you win the lottery you have two main choices – to spend it in a great splurge or to invest it so you can be wealthy forever - if you do the second you’ll never live as high as the first, but you’ll live well longer.
Well we’ve spent a lot of it and we’re reaching the point where the amount we can extract from the horde – our monthly payments from the lottery win – cannot sustain our lifestyle. All of the money hasn’t been wasted, by any measure. We’ve built industrial infrastructure and networks of learning institutions and much more besides – institutions and networks that produce wealth. But we haven’t put as much into learning how to create more of what we need – of the Dragon’s gold, of the energy it gives.
And that’s where we are now – with energy profit ratios ready to decline, we find ourselves in a situation where more and more of our effort will have to go into getting energy, leaving us with less and less energy to spend on other things – not just the air conditioners and lights and heating that we take for granted, but the industrial production that makes our lives of material splendor possible. And as more and more need to work just to obtain energy, many activities we do that take great energy may have to be scaled back to take less: which will mean more human energy – more farmers labouring on the Latifundia of the new world (for the family farms are basically gone), fewer robots and more laborers – all working for less – all doing work that could be done more easily by technology, machines and chemicals – but when energy is hard to come by labor will be substituted. Perhaps your labor.
And so, perhaps, the lights will dim and we may find indeed, that until we come to grips with the fact that the great treasure trove of oil is no longer sufficient to support us as kings that few of us may live lives of energy fed splendor.
This is the challenge before us – like most challenges it is not insurmountable. But also like any real challenge it is not foreordained that we will succeed. Every hero who slew a dragon was preceded by dozens who failed.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Woops. Comments seem to have been off for some reason. Back on. My apologies.
Hey Ian! Thanks for this analysis.
My great grandparents did not have electricity up in the Kentucky mountains, and they did just fine. But I imagine we descendants won’t be as cheerful if we have to live without it.
We do tend to think that existing trends will continue ad infinitum. There will always be affordable energy, the stock market will continue to climb, prosperity is always within sight if not within grasp.
Alas things go wrong. Some are predictable, some surprises. We would do well to consider our alternatives before things go too dark.
Ian, with some of the best astronomical observatories located here on the Big Isle, by county and state ordinances we’ve got sodium streetlights… *g*
Ian, thanks for this thorough and thought-provoking post.
The challenge requires humanity alter the inputs or it will be insurmountable.
The planet cannot carry human population growing as it is.
We will definitely have to downsize humanity… in addition to using less energy more efficiently and from some new sources and technologies.
Have you seen the tethered wind generators? Very cool. Very powerful and there’s lots of winds aloft and it doesn’t mess up real estate. Air traffic is another issue, but we need to fly a lot less.
Kudos for a well written article!
For home lighting -oil lamps, gas lamps, off-the-grid solar panels and DC battery systems are used in remote areas with good results. To be on the grid was a ponzi scheme designed to put wealth in the hands of the few. Individual personal vehicles is another such scheme. Schemes they are. They are schemes of which we have become accustomed and find comforting. They are rip-offs. They are not good for the planet.
A few years ago I was back visiting one of my aunts over the holidays, outside my small hometown in Kentucky. I had been living in New England and the Northeast for a few years at that time. There was a clear crisp late fall evening and I was outside and looked up at the sky. I had forgotten just how beautiful the night sky could be without all the ambient light of the cities reflecting everything.
Does the Quran tell its followers to multiply like rabbits in the name of God? I would guess that it does - in the same way that the bible does. Until those tenets of organized religion can be thoroughly denounced as fool-hardy AND churches begin to promote birth control, life on earth will worsen.
But not so much for the Bush’s when they high tail it to Paraguay.
In the Jan ’08 issue of Scientific American there is strategy to convert ~70 of the US electrical and 35% total energy to solar. Estimated cost by 2050 ~420 billion which seems like a lot of money until one thinks about how much Bush is pissing away in Iraq. There is no ”free lunch”; about 30,000 square miles of the South West US will be covered with solar panels.
But that’s with current technology. It’s likely that solar panels can produce energy more efficiently in the future.
standing on chair clapping
wow
I’m with you there.
Humans are trashing the planet like it’s 1999.
I won’t live to see the end I suspect, but it will be not long after I am no longer here at the rate we are going.
This gives us even more reason to wrench the grip on Congress away from the industrial complex.
Exxon-Mobil profits + oil lobbyists = no support for new energy development
Ann Arbor! First U.S City To Be Lit With 100% LEDs
Tonite I’m gonna party like its 1999. I’m talking about birth control being promoted in protestant sermons and catholic masses. I have one child. I want him to have a good life on an abundant earth. Everyone is afraid. People are beginning to talk about things. Everyone was afraid to knock Republicans and now they are talking. Its been a seven year blackout with the dumbest, most arrogant dickhead American President the world has ever seen.
We got the most lights on! We’re number one! /s
That is based on a reasonable projection of future technology. At the present time, commercial solar cells convert 9-10% of solar energy to electric current. In order for solar to be practical, the conversion rate needs to be at least 14%, which is do-able. The other components of a “solar” technology that usually aren’t mentioned are the need to create a whole new DC current transmission system and the need to create a way to store the electrical power …at night now power is generated. At the present time, I think the “not in my back yard” would prevent the program going forward.
We could start with a campaign to turn off the parking lot lights at the malls and shopping centers after they close. Their ambient orange light pollutes the night sky for miles.
That should be no power is generated. (when do we get edit)
Brilliant Ian!
I was up on Ottawa this week at a conference - mainly for Canadian government folks - about adaptation to climate change. While we are fighting to slow and halt global warming, major changes are already happening and hurting northern communities in dramatic ways.
We must have at least that in roof tops. Just re-cover all the forclosures with solar roofs :-/
when solar power becomes affordable for the average joe and jane….perhaps then pollution woes will lessen here in america…and people aren’t going to fly less so airplanes need to get serious about their energy usage as far as i can grasp this….
Imagine how horrible the world would be if there was NO energy crisis.
We’re gonna learn the hard way and the solution is that we need to stop multiplying like rabbits.
Yeah, loss of ice is a big deal up north, and it’s devastating the wildlife population.
Oil production in the US peaked in 1970. It has been downhill ever since except for two years when Alaska came on line.
In many cases high speed trains are effectively faster than planes (when you factor in security, check in and commute times to and from airports). People wouldn’t fly up and down the east and west corridors if there were good high speed train networks.
I am told that high speed internet is cheaper in France And they have high speed trains.
From what I have read, the “tipping point” for global warming occurred about 1980. Once the ice start to melt, it is then only a question of how bad is it going to be. The really bad new is that the reality is far out stripping the climate models. Two years ago, scientists who were predicting that the Arctic would have ice free summers in 40 years were thought to be crazy. Today the projection is less than 5 years.
Ian, you’ve neglected to mention a very important factor. Even if there were an infinite supply of very high ratio fossil fuel available, we couldn’t use it. The surface of the planet is already gagging from carbon toxicity. The atmosphere, the oceans, and the land are getting burdened with an overdose of carbon brought to the surface in the form of fossil fuel.
There’s lots of talk about “carbon sequestration.” But so far as I can tell, it’s pie in the sky propaganda from the clean-coal lobby. Meanwhile, there are some very good alternatives in terms of nuclear and solar (including wind and biomass), e.g.:
— http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....grand-plan
— http://www.wired.com/cars/ener...../ethanol23
— http://www.nextenergynews.com/.....2.17b.html
I believe that we are on the verge of a quantum leap into alternative energy discoveries and technology…a kind of cleaner revolution…I guess I’m an optimist…people often don’t come up with new stuff when they are so used to what they have, but the time has come for a new shift.
Some friends of mine came up last week who live near Houston…where I live, there is no “other” light at night and no noise, and it is like a planetarium at night. They got ready to leave and walked outside and didn’t look up, and right before they got in their car to leave, I said “look up”…they did and they nearly fell over…they had forgotten to even bother…they were floored. It was really a cool moment.
true indeed ian… i pretty drive when travelling but i’d love it if we had more and better rapid transit connections as i love riding the rails..
Yeah, I’m aware of the sink issue. And in fact, the real fear right now is coal–there’s enough coal (not good quality stuff, but good enough) to keep us going for another hundred years. But if we do that, we’ll destroy ourselves. (Not the environment, ourselves.)
I may discuss my prefered solution in another article, but you’re absolutely right that we need to move to different sources of energy in any case.
*sigh*
Ian.. great post! Here in the valley there is a new Solar company that will be a leap in cost/ratio structure of solar panels. They can be printed on rolls using low cost printing methods…. check out their web site: http://www.nanosolar.com/about.htm
We need more leaps in this type of clean cost effective Solar energy panels!!
Thanks again for this importanr post.. Hope to see more!
Dugg it!
The Dutch are currently pumping CO2 below the ocean floor to prevent its release into the atmosphere.
Another interesting option for ways to use carbon…more and better black.
Not us though. Dubya (and Dick) don’t care nuthin fer that kinda tree huggin. Dr. Stranglove was an omen.
The over population is a self correcting situation…more greenhouse gases, faster warming, higher sea levels, and decreasing food production. James Lovelace, of the Gaia hypothesis, predicts that human population after 2100 will be 500 million.
It is time for a war on energy. War has been the driving force behind technological innovation. It is time for change. A push for energy innovation. Corporate Oil obstructionism is the issue as it has been for the past 35 years. Profit before nation!!!
Even lower if the US keeps voting for Republicans.
Thanks. I very much look forward to your posting on alternative energy sources.
Yep, and more the half of US electricity is coal-based, much of it using outmoded environmental/emission technologies. Just to deal with global warming, we need to replace hundreds of power plants built in the last fifty years, just to meet current demand, never mind growing demand. None of the renewables so far has shown they can displace this much capacity, so it creates major dilemma for those opposed to nukes. So far, the only “no regrets” policy I’ve seen while we sort this out is investment in energy efficiency — do more with less, use less, use it at the right times (off-peak), and price it at marginal costs, which means we’d be paying 4-5 times as much during hot afternoons as we’d pay for 2 a.m.
Ian, a wonderful post so beautifully written (more!). And Sandman, I took a high speed train in France recently — right from the airport in Paris, a train took us all the way east to Strasbourg, France in a few hours. Fabulous.
By the way some of the nuc plants in the Southeast may go off-line due to water shortages.
It is rather surprisng that a post that is essentially about peak oil, or perhaps in a larger sense peak energy, mentions neither.
Dubya and Dick love nukes. Tells you all you need to know.
The cartel position of telecoms in this country means we are sold less at higher prices.
I was just going to bring that up. Any steam driven electrical generation requires large amounts of water. With increasing global warming, water is becoming s huge problem.
Not just the malls. Once you start to notice, you will see huge freeway lights on here and there in broad daylight. The public park near my house(Houston) often leaves the parking lot lights on for a whole weekend day and night I have complained to everyone I can think of to no avail. Megawatts are being wasted all over the place but what’s noise machine say? Install florescents in your bathroom.
Outdoor lighting should cost more but I’ll bet it costs less. Anybody had any success with getting lights turned off when not being used. I know I sound like my dad but now it’s not just the family budget, it’s the family’s lives.
Joel Mael
What do you expect… greed is the driving force behind to many corporations and we end up getting shafted in the process. The examples of such greed are to many to list and most of you just how much it truly is this countries major source of problems.
Yes, egregious, but your comment shows that, in fact, you don’t think that way. The problem with Republicans and conservatism in general is that they always do think that it is all going to last forever pretty much as it is now. Or perhaps I should say this is the line they sell to the rubes who vote for them. Either they see no problem or they favor simple solutions that haven’t a prayer of succeeding. I see conservatism not so much as stupid but rather as a form of suicide.
I read it as about the declining energy ratio — it takes more energy in to get the same out. And it’s true not just because the easy oil is declining, but also the easy coal, the easy natural gas. And it will only get worse as/if we move off the fossil fuels to deal with carbon issues.
I haven’t read all the comments or the entire enree so I don’t know if this is addressed but I believe that number there is incorrect
nuclear energy involves deferring costs so the actual cost isn’t calculated or calculate able
it takes our military to defend the plant, it takes roads and escape plans, it takes precautions that other sources don’t take and these precautions are born by the government not the supplier
then there is disposal which we neither now how to do nor the final expense
and of course disease, catastrophe and a host of other expenses that are not figured into that figure of 4
I believe when all is told nuclear power is the most exensive of all with the lowest return
bobby kenedy speaks on it but I don’t have a link
Those are all manifestations of peak energy. Since oil is such a big component of this and is likely to be the first to go into decline, peak oil is often used as both a shorthand and a harbinger of the future decline in energy resources over all.
We’re at peak light oil. We aren’t at peak oil — the tar sands and shales have a ton of oil. The problem is that the energy ratio sucks rocks on them. We would be a much poorer society if we used them as our primary source of energy, much much poorer.
That, of course, leaves aside the carbon sink issue and they are horrible from a carbon perspective.
But we aren’t exactly out of oil; we’re just running out of the easy stuff.
There is one Nuc plant in Oregon being torn down and the cost is huge, huge. Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.
here are some examples of deferred costs I’m talking about;
the air space would have to be restricted, any plane enetering that airspace would have to be addressed with military escort, this means the area must be patrolled and monitored by the military, an expense that the provider will not pay for, we will
then there’s the real estate that is depreciated because it’s hard to sell property near a nucelar plant, that’s another expense that the provider doesn’t pay for, including lost tax revenue
as I said, bobby kenedy speaks on it but I don’t have a link
Given the world’s increasing population, the rising expectations of that population, and the world’s resources, especially energy and water, there is a tremendous civilization-wide crash in the offing if we do not find a source of cheap, non-carbon energy.
0ff topic and a little levity -
I am watching tv and there is an incredible singer doing a concert, really good entertainer and her voice is incredible
she sounds just like christine aquialera (spelling?) but it can’t be here becuase this girl is sort of chunky with huge bazooms
then I see the lead in from commercial and it is indeed chistina
man, when did she get this boob job and why?
boob jobs were so last decade
anyway, she’s great
I think she just had baby. That could explain big boobs and increased weight.
The country could grow hemp and be energy independent.
Also, the new plasma gasification technology for ethanol production looks very promising. Plasma is 6 x more energy efficient than producing ethanol from corn.
it might, they seem mighty real
The higher the price, the more likely that we will kick the habit.
and if we could get over our irrational fear of people having a good time, feeling good and not paying attention to unitary authority we could grow the other weed, too.
What about using the tides to generate energy?
There’s no question that there are many things we could do to address our energy problems for the long term - but the way our economy is structured does not reward long - term thinking. The lottery analogy is a good one. Sara Robinson had an excellent post over at the Big Con detailing how the Republican party has been systematically taking down the systems we used to have in place as a society to plan for the long term. (http://www.ourfuture.org/print/20706)
On the energy ratio question and solar power, one interesting point about solar power satellites is that transportation costs are not really a factor. The big investment is building the infrastructure to build the satellites in the first place. The sun shines 24/7 in orbit, and you simply transmit the power you capture there down to the ground, directly to a receiving antenna.
I vaguely recall some assertion that if you could capture the total solar energy that passes through one square mile in orbital space above the earth in one year, it would more than match the energy consumed on the planet in that year. The initial expense of getting satellites on line would be high - but the long term pay-off should more than make it up. The military is interested in running field installations from SPS stations, because supplying troops in the field with energy is a huge logistical problem.
The thing that worries me is that while we have many possible answers now, we don’t have the motivation to start switching to them. When things deteriorate such that we DO have the motivation, we may no longer have the resources. Timing is everything.
Nixon put a big, giant wind turbine on Block Island. It was his administrations contribution to alternative energy. They put the blade on backwards. Doesn’t work.
And when will security checks be introduced at the local train station?
I’m not sure these points are truly valid.
We have nuclear power plants in this country. Do we do this now?
I would suggest that these are not energy costs. They are prejudice costs brought on by people’s uninformed hysteria about nuclear power.
The reactor designs available now are much safer and more efficient than the outdated reactors in use in this country today.
But we haven’t built any of these designs because of people’s uninformed hysteria about nuclear power.
By switching to a Thorium system rather than Uranium (which takes miniscule retrofitting) less waste would be produced and fuel would last longer, increasing the power ratio. But the US hasn’t really put much time or effort into pursuing these kinds of advancements because of people’s uninformed hysteria about nuclear power.
Depends. I’d say that if DHS is allowed to continue to exist internal checks will continue to multiply. But that’s a whole other article.
Ian
The culprit is capitalism which locks us into the status quo. When you are employed in a fossil fuel plant, you resist nuclear or anything that threatens your situation. Nuclear plants that boil water to make steam to turn turbines are like swatting a fly with a baseball bat. There’s probably enough electricity in a bucket of sea water to power a medium sized house for a year, but we put our resources into Iraq and other bastions of empire.
We are crazy, and I mean that in the literal sense. We are suicidal collectively for the same reasons individuals are suicidal. Inferiority drives our world. Nothing will change until we rouse ourselves to address that. As for resources, there’s plenty. We have only to learn to ask Mother Nature nicely.
I’m going to have to assume that you’re talking about nuclear fusion here. While I agree that this would be the best solution for energy production, it is not currently possible. Further, I don’t think it’s from lack of trying. There are many, many, high-powered, well funded reasearch programs pursuing this very goal.
The scientific team that manages feasible cold fusion will literally go down in the history books as changing the face of mankind.
Wow. Great fucking post, Ian!
You are right. It is not currently available. I think there’s a program at some university. It was on television. Something having to do with a “bottle”. Blue light all over the place. Looked like Buck Rogers.
Several problems. First and foremost the people who get employment and their sense of self from fossil fuel installations will not welcome their replacements. Second, capitalism and competition hobble fusion programs as various individuals seeking the brass ring, keep their discoveries to themselves. We need one, you’ll pardon the expression, government run program such as the one that gave us the atomic bomb, if fusion is to succeed. The capitalist paradign of programs all over the place won’t do it.
The weaknesses of the “news” industry is revealed whenever an energy company shill is allowed to gloat about America’s huge coal reserves without admitting that a large percentage of them are under populated areas.
They never get asked “Are you saying that the government should seize Pittsburg by eminent domain for the coal underneath it?” This despite the fact that they are including that coal in their numbers.
How bad would it have to be for us to level the Appalachians?