Blog

change.org

Running Out Of Room

No energy = no goods and services = no economy
Wednesday, November 1, 2017, 7:02 PM

This article ran earlier to PeakProsperity.com's premium subscribers. Many of them have requested we share it with a wider audience.

Given that feedback and since Chris in Munich, Germany right now presenting on a related topic, we are making the below report available to the general public.

The idea of an 'industrial economy' is an extremely recent human invention. And we’ve staked quite a lot on its continuation.

But it faces a massive predicament: It’s running out of resources.

When talking about the “economy”, we're really referring to the flow of goods and services --- which are themselves entirely dependent on energy. No energy = no goods and services = no economy. It’s really that simple.

So to track where we are in this story, put on your ‘energy goggles’. If you do, you can discover quite a lot.

Examples of our increasing use of energy to extract primary resources are all around you, if you know where to look. Most folks, though, willfully distract, if not delude, themselves with faith in our technological triumphs, so they remain blind to the evidence -- even when it's right in front of their faces.

One indication of increasing energy use is exemplified in the very recent practice of drilling 5-mile long oil wells into source rocks, then performing 100-stage frack jobs that consume up to 50 million pounds of sand and 16 million gallons of water (per job!). This is the essence of the shale oil revolution.

Some see it as a technological marvel; others, as a sign of severe desperation. The media will only ever dutifully tell you the technological marvel side of the story. And while it is a marvel, that's only half the story.

More examples come to us from the world of hard rock mining. Where humans high-graded all the easy, nearby, high-yield ores during the first decades of the industrial revolution, the last few decades are clear examples of increasingly desperate efforts to go after the increasingly dilute residuals that remain.

Again, many of these new mining efforts are both testament to advancing technology and skills, as well as condemnation that the primary inputs for our economic machine are in increasingly short supply.

As mentioned, the media already does a fantastic job telling us about how wonderfully advanced all of these efforts are, so we’ll skip over that side of the story. Rather, this report will help you focus on understanding what these efforts actually represent in terms of where we are in the industrial story, which is really a tale of pursuing infinite exponential growth on a planet of finite resources.

We don’t do this to be sticks in the mud. But because every single stock and bond, as well as our entire collective economic future, is committed to the belief that economic limits will never appear, a reality-based counterpoint is badly needed. We think those limits to growth are already here, and are staring us right in the face once we know where and how to look for them.

If perpetual economic growth isn't possible, then the entire construct of debt-based money will eventually implode. Pensions will not be serviced, and involuntary simplicity will visit economies and cultures alike.

And if our math is correct, it’s already too late to avoid these events. like Wile E. Coyote, all of our hopes and dreams are suspended in mid-air, now too far from the cliff’s edge to scrabble back to safety.

Keeping Your Eye On The Ball

The hard truth is that, after just a few hundred years of intensive exponential economic growth fueled by the industrial revolution’s greatest achievement – unlocking fossil fuels to perform work for us – we are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.

As I noted in The Crash Course, additional resources are becoming harder to find and harder to get. They are more dilute, deeper and more distant. We quite predictably “high graded” the best resources decades (or centuries) ago, taking those that were easiest to get to, the most concentrated, and the most economic.

Once those were gone, we moved on to the harder-to-get to resources.

And now?

Now we’re at that awkward part of the story where rational people really ought to be asking some difficult questions besides Can we do this? Now we likely should also be asking Why are we doing this? And What is today's scarcity tell us about tomorrow? And perhaps, Should we even be doing this?

Today’s textbook-perfect example of a project that really ought to provoke some serious inner questioning comes to us courtesy of the WSJ, reporting on the massive Rio Tinto project known as the Resolution Copper Project near Superior Arizona.

As you read this, please set aside the technical brilliance of what’s being proposed, and think instead about what such a project implies about Where we are in the story of perpetual economic growth. Are we closer to the beginning, the middle, or the end?

Mining a Mile Down: 175 Degrees, 600 Gallons of Water a Minute

Jun 7, 2017

SUPERIOR, Ariz.—One of the world’s largest untapped copper deposits sits 7,000 feet below the Earth’s surface. It is a lode that operator Rio Tinto wouldn’t have touched—until now.

Not that long ago, an abundance of high-grade copper could be mined out of shallower open pits. But as those deposits are depleted and high-grade copper becomes tougher to find, firms such as Rio have been compelled to mine deeper underground.

(Source)

Comment: This is just about as a clear as the writing on the wall can get: The high-grade stuff is gone. This is what’s left. It wouldn’t have even been considered perhaps a decade ago. Now it’s the best option left on the table.

A good question to ask here might be: So what will people be left to mine in 100 years? 50 years? 10 years?

Continuing on:

Advances in mining technology are making that possible—just as developments in oil and gas drilling heralded the fracking revolution. Now, using everything from sensors and data analytics to autonomous vehicles and climate-control systems, Rio aims to pull ore from more than a mile below ground, where temperatures can reach nearly 175 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Copper has just become a lot harder to get, and we’re relying on technology to keep dealing with that decline in grade,” said Craig Stegman, Rio’s vice president for operational and technical support for copper and diamonds.

Comment: “Copper has just become a lot harder to get.” That’s code speak for “Copper is now a lot more energy-intensive to get.” Consider the energy costs involved in cooling shafts in the deep earth from 175 degrees down to 77 degrees.

Just for kicks, here’s a handy steak preparedness chart to give us a sense of what 175 degrees means should the cooling systems fail for any reason:

So if the cooling shuts down and anybody gets trapped for an hour or more at 175 degrees, they will be very 'well done'.

Continuing on:

Most of the world’s copper is extracted from open pits at the Earth’s surface, according to the International Copper Study Group. Some mines are deeper than the Resolution mine, but this is Rio’s deepest underground mining project to date. While a deep underground block-cave mine costs much more to develop, Rio says it can match the operating costs per ton of ore of a surface mine, partly because it is so mechanized.

“Because Resolution is so deep and so hot, it’s really going to push the envelope of technology,” said Mary Poulton, professor emerita of mining and geological engineering at the University of Arizona.

A 15-minute elevator ride 6,943 feet down Resolution’s No. 10 mine shaft leads to a dimly lighted cavern where warm water falls from the rocks like rain. Electrical gear buzzes constantly, and a network of pipes pumps water out of the shaft at the rate of 600 gallons a minute. A ventilation system cools the area to 77 degrees.

Over the next few years, Rio plans to deploy tens of thousands of electronic sensors, as well as autonomous vehicles and complex ventilation systems, to help it bring 1.6 billion tons of ore to the surface over the more than 40-year projected life of the mine.

Comment: Now lets consider the additional required energy costs, including those needed to pump 600 gallons of water a minute up a vertical mile, and then haul the ore, ton by ton, up that same vertical mile.

That’s a lot of lifting!

So the mine being proposed here is more than a mile underground, wicked hot, flowing with 600 gallons of water a minute (my outdoor faucet can manage 5 gallons per minute, so that’s like 120 of my faucets running full blast all day, every day) that needs to not just be pumped back up to the surface, but then transported and disposed of elsewhere.

Now think about 1.6 billion tons of ore brought to the surface at a tremendous energy cost, which is then smashed and processed. Oh yes, and then the left-over tailings have to be disposed of…somewhere. Energy, energy, energy.

Again, this heroic effort is being proposed only because it is the best one left to prosecute. The engineers and executive staff at Rio Tinto know their business, and they've concluded there's no easier option left to pursue.

Doing The Math

So what’s actually involved here? Perhaps putting a few numbers to it might help us to get our arms around the scale and scope of the proposed project.

From Wikipedia:

Resolution Copper (RCM) is a joint venture owned by Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton formed to develop and operate an underground copper mine near Superior, Arizona, U.S.

The project targets a deep-seated porphyry copper deposit located under the now inactive Magma Mine. Rio Tinto has reported an inferred resource of 1.624 billion tonnes containing 1.47 percent copper and 0.037 percent molybdenum at depths exceeding 1,300 metres (0.81 mi).

The proposed mine is one of the largest copper resources in North America. Following the passage of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, many Native American and conservation groups fear the copper mine will destroy sacred and environmentally sensitive land.

(Source)

These are huge numbers. So let’s start with the biggest. What might it cost in terms of energy to lift 1.624 billion tonnes from 1,300 meters deep?

Well, without any friction or other considerations, it takes 10 Joules of energy to lift 1 kilogram by 1 meter.

A tonne is 1,000 kilograms. So it takes 10,000 Joules to lift a tonne by a meter. Carrying on, it would take 10,000 times 1,300, or 13,000,000 Joules (13 Mega Joules or MJ), to lift 1 tonne of ore to the surface.

Let’s assume that friction and thermal waste cost you around 30%. So the total amount of Joules would be (13,000,000)/0.7 = 18.5 MJ.

Therefore, to lift all 1.624 billion tonnes would require a very large number of Joules: 2.97 * 10^16

And how much energy is that? Well, with a little conversion of MJ into barrels of oil, we discover that just a little over 5 million barrels of oil would be involved just in lifting the ore to the surface.

And for the water, the calculations turn into some 5,000 barrels of oil a year just to lift the water out. That doesn’t seem too ridiculous, but it’s not free either. That’s 5,000 barrels of oil that cannot be used to do something important like grow food, or build out the next energy infrastructure.

It’s being burned simply to keep water out of a mile-deep, super-hot hole in the ground.

I have no idea how much energy is required to cool the deep earth by roughly 100 degrees, but I'll bet it’s a lot. Further, we have no idea what will be done with the approximately 1.6 billion tonnes of mine waste. But if it’s anything like prior efforts, it will end up in a big pile somewhere leaching out awfulness into the surface water table for the next few hundred years.

Put it all together and even though it can be done, and Rio may make a profit doing it, we have to ask: Is this is the best use of that energy at this point in the human experiment?

Conclusion

The Resolution mine proposed by Rio Tinto is progressing because it's the company's the best option left. That tells us that we are now at the stage of chasing resources where going a mile down into the Earth makes sense.

Well, economic sense. But not energy sense.

Without massive energy inputs this mine doesn't happen. When copper came to us relatively easily and more inexpensively in the past, that’s the same thing as saying that it came to market requiring a lot less energy involved. That won't be the case going forward.

We should be asking at this point in the human experiment if it makes sense to be using our remaining energy in this way.

Sure, we can develop the Resolution mine project. But should we? Are there any different or better uses for that energy that might take precedence?

Further, if this is what’s required to keep the whole exponential industrial economic system going, why do so few people see projects like the Resolution mine as the curtain call for the entire project of economic growth?

Look, we all can easily calculate that eventually there are limits to our status quo pursuit of resources. There's only so much fish in the ocean, so much land on which to grow food, and so much non-renewable energy to cheaply exploit.

We all know this intellectually; and yet the idea that such limits might apply seems to most people to be a very distant or dismissable prospect.

But what are 5-mile long oil boreholes and mile-deep copper mines but clear-cut, incontrovertible evidence that we are on the difficult part of the extraction slope?

It’s not like engineers are dreaming up risky, expensive projects for fun. They are chasing what’s left.

If we can already see that we’re at the what’s left part of the story, it’s really not much of an intellectual leap to begin asking: What does the next part of the story look like?

In some respects, that’s easy. Growth will slow down for the simple reason that it’s far easier to grow 4% from a smaller base than from a larger one. It’s doubly hard to grow that 4% on a larger base if the resources required for that growth are more expensive, more dilute, deeper and vastly more energy-intensive than the similar resources that funded prior growth.

So growth will slow. It has to, mathematically.

The next part of the story is also easy to predict: eventually there won't be enough energy to do everything. We will have to begin deciding to do some things but not other things. How society triages that will be very interesting to watch.

Will we consciously jettison this over that? Or will we allow the vagaries of “market forces” to determine what gets shed along the way?

But the big part of this story is that the past 50 years have been entirely dominated by one key economic force: The growth of debt at TWICE the rate of the economy.

Compounding debt at 8% while the economy grew at 4% made sense only using a very narrow “logic” that assumed that, someday, rapid economic growth would magically arrive and bail us out from all that debt. It was a singular bet on growth.

Now it’s entirely obvious that bet is busted. But the urge to continue growing debt is now so thoroughly entrenched that it practically has a life of its own. Virtually every institution now depends on growth continuing the way it has been.

Central banks feverishly work to continue growing debt piles because that’s what they think has to be done. Why? Because that’s what was done during their lifetimes. It’s what they know.

So the remaining key question is: What happens to the world financial system and its mountains of debt if/when the required growth does not materialize? That’s easy, the debt piles implode.

Either through a process of inflation or deflation, those debts will be reduced. The only operative question remaining is Who’s going to eat the losses?

This is why you need to have the proper context for the story at hand. Where the media works 24/7 to laud the "technology is amazing" angle, you need to be aware that this obscures the even more important observation that the technology is there because we’re at a very delicate and new part of the story.

The bottom line is this: humans are now at the desperate phase of trying to keep the perpetual expansion model alive. These efforts are clearly failing, which we can detect in faltering ecosystems, slowing global growth, and immensely energy-intensive and environmentally-destructive efforts to get the remaining dregs out as fast as possible.

You can easily detect this desperation in the projects being proposed. Ask yourself what a human just 100 years ago would have thought if you’d pitched these ideas to them:

  • We can grow lettuce in metal boxes using LEDs near cities!
  • Scraping 10’s of thousands of acres of Canadian wilderness and then use hot water to scrape a waxy reside off of each grain of sand leaving behind a moonscape and systemically poisoned waters.
  • Drilling 5 miles and using huge amounts of water and toxic chemicals to create short-lived oil wells.
  • Mile deep holes in a hot spot to get at some 1.45 concentration copper ore.
  • Creating new, more powerful and more lethal pesticides and herbicides because the last round became a little less effective.

In closing, the fact that we can do all of these things is a testament to human ingenuity, and my role here is not to bash that side of the equation. Instead I'm here to provide some balance to that incessant cheerleading. As discussed here, there is a very important side of the story the media too often ignores.

As much as I try, I cannot gaze out over the next few decades without concluding that technology is simply prolonging the inevitable date with less that humanity will have to confront.

~ Chris Martenson

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

68 Comments

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 426
We all need to share our resources better!

Geedard's picture
Geedard
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2014
Posts: 52
+ 0.25% BOE decision just out...and so it begins...

And so it begins...the much anticipated (slow) race back up to the top...and all that that could mean...

"BOE now out with their eagerly awaited decision 2 Nov

  • bank rate 0.5% vs 0.25% prev
  • QE unch at £435bln
  • corp bond target at 10bln
  • vote: 7-2
  • all members agree that any future increases in Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent"
Rodster's picture
Rodster
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 22 2016
Posts: 11
Thank You Chris !

This article is just as eye popping as the one you did on the loss of Bees and what it means to our food supplies in the future and the damage we humans are doing to our biosphere.

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 448
Taking the math a bit farther

I'll take this a bit farther Chris.  You were generous in assuming the ore as only 1300 m down.  The article implies it starts there.  It continues to 2100 m, so lets average that to 1700 m or about 25% more.  The ore will probably be moved to the surface with electricity.  Oil (or more likely the energy equivalent in natural gas or coal) is converted to electricity with 40% efficiency in the new more efficient power plants.  Even so, we need to multiply by 2.5, so your 5 million barrels of oil becomes 5M x 1.25 x 2.5 ~ 15.5 million barrels. 

To look at whether renewable electricity could do this for us, let's translate that to MW.  You got 3x10^16 joules.  My 25% adjustment gets us to 3.75x10^16 joules / 40 years (or 1.2 billion seconds or 1.2x10^9 seconds). That gets us about 3x10^7 W or 30 MW.  A solar power plant even in sunny Arizona averages about 25% of capacity because of night time and the low sun angle in the early morning and late afternoon.  So we would nee a 120 MW solar plant (probably 200 + with the ore transport, crushing, processing and disposal + maybe 2-3 MW continuous pumping and cooling).  And we would need to operate only when the sun was shining or have some big batteries.  The cost of that electricity just for the lifting, assuming $100/MW hour would be  $3000/hr * 8760 hours/year * 40 years or somewhat over a billion dollars (which agrees nicely with the $40/ton price in the next paragraph).

1.624 billion tons at 1.47% gives us about 24 million tons of copper or just over 1.5 tons per barrel.  So the oil involved in lifting the ore only contributes about $30-$40 to the price of a ton of copper.  This explains why it's economically viable right now.

I wonder how much energy is involved in crushing the ore, transporting it to the smelter, smelting it and then disposing of the waste.  I bet this is about equivalent to the lifting energy.

Of course, what happens when, in a few decades, the deep ore beds are down to a few tenths of a percent like they are on many currently mined surface deposits.  That changes everything by a factor of 5-7.

Goodsalt's picture
Goodsalt
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 4 2014
Posts: 8
Pipyman's picture
Pipyman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 24 2011
Posts: 38
Yes but what?

My confetti is on a pathetic number of small increases before the next crash. Some kind of pretext will precede the crash to distract the masses from the simple fact that the economy cannot bare higher interest rates. Then, safe in the shadow of the "beast", central banks around the world hold hands, sing Kumbya and promise to save us all with their mighty "bag of tools". Low and behold, interest rates are rammed below 0%, and just as granny's crushed head rears up from the road to see what flattened her....... the reverse lights come on.

 

Thoughts? 

climber99's picture
climber99
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2013
Posts: 170
We're in trouble

We're in trouble. I have just come across the following site that summarizes our collective denial well.

https://un-denial.com/2017/01/06/you-know-you-are-in-trouble-when/

 
 
Olduvai.ca's picture
Olduvai.ca
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 8 2014
Posts: 8
Diminishing Returns
After reading this I am reminded of Joseph Tainter's basic premise in The Collapse of Complex Societies:
-human societies are problem-solving organizations that require energy for their maintenance;
-increased complexity carries with it increased costs per capita and investment in complexity as a problem-solving response often reaches a point of declining marginal returns;
-humans tend to make use of the easier-to-acquire, -extract, -process, and -distribute resources first and shift to more costlier ones later with no greater returns;
-as stressors increase, the costs associated with complexity increases over time while the benefits decline, initially at a gradual pace but then much more quickly 
-the likelihood of collapse increases as excess production and/or surpluses are used to meet currents needs, leaving no reserves when a stress surge arises and this may result in a weakened state that makes society even more vulnerable to future stress;
-once a society begins experiencing declining marginal returns, collapse becomes more likely and may just require the passage of time;
-as return on investment in complexity declines, complexity becomes a less attractive option and sections of society opt out via separation or selecting less complex options (collapse, then, can be seen as an economic 'choice' that is not catastrophic but a return to 'normal' conditions of less complexity; much more chaotic and problematic for the 'administrators' of society than the majority of the population--if they can produce their own food);
-significant increased costs occur late, just prior to collapse, for a population already experiencing declining marginal returns;
-population tends to level off/decline, just prior to collapse, while the well-being of most declines;
-areas are abandoned, perhaps due to environmental degradation and peripheral groups rise in prominence post-collapse.
 
As I say to friends/family repeatedly: infinite growth on a finite planet, what could possibly go wrong?
 
Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
That's some list Climber99.

That's some list Climber99. It makes me so sad for us all and for our whole planet. I want to relish each moment of friendship and caring I've got left.

Lest people loose heart completely I want to say there's good evidence for past lives and hence future lives. I know this doesn't solve the problem but maybe it allows more time and hope. 

It sure is one good mystery.

I'm also reminded of the Alcoholics Anonymous standby: one day at a time.  

Come to think of it maybe more from the AA Handbook would be helpful? We are dependent on oil and stuff.

Stabu's picture
Stabu
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2011
Posts: 88
What if EROEI Doesn't Matter Much?

I'm only partially playing devil's advocate in here, but I've really started to wonder if one reason why things haven't fallen apart as much yet is because EROEI matters less than it used to? Here's my thinking: Let's assume that current society needs 1,000 units of energy and it was previously getting it by burning 1,000 units of fossile fuels with an EROEI of 10 to 1. Therefore, society had to invest 100 units of energy to get the required 1,000 units (900 surplus). Let's now say that EROEI drops to 5 to 1 and therefore society needs to invest 220 units of energy to get the required 1,100 units out (900 surplus). This would be a problem if it necessitated a doubling of the workforce for this pursuit, but with increased technology you now have robotic roughnecks and hence what really matters is to get to the right gross energy, regardless of how much energy invested it requires. Naturally there are some limits to this. If EROEI would drop to 2 to 1 we would need to invest 900 units to get the required 1,800 units out (900 surplus) etc., but as long as this doesn't require increasing human capital we can technologically do this. This would then push our energy problem out in the future, unfortunately it would mean that when we're done scraping the bottom of the barrel the collapse would be even more swift than otherwise. There are also some technical limits such as max flow rates of oil etc, but in theory I would say that the robotic revolution that we're currently witnessing is reducing the importance of EROEI.

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 391
What if EROEI Doesn’t Matter Much?

There is a line of thought that if the world is over populated then cheap, easy, renewable energy would be disastrous for the planet.  So do we really know what the state of energy availability is?

Just wondering?

AKGrannyWGrit

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5440
Not sure I agree with your assumption here
Stabu wrote:

I'm only partially playing devil's advocate in here, but I've really started to wonder if one reason why things haven't fallen apart as much yet is because EROEI matters less than it used to? Here's my thinking: Let's assume that current society needs 1,000 units of energy and it was previously getting it by burning 1,000 units of fossile fuels with an EROEI of 10 to 1. Therefore, society had to invest 100 units of energy to get the required 1,000 units (900 surplus). Let's now say that EROEI drops to 5 to 1 and therefore society needs to invest 220 units of energy to get the required 1,100 units out (900 surplus). This would be a problem if it necessitated a doubling of the workforce for this pursuit, but with increased technology you now have robotic roughnecks and hence what really matters is to get to the right gross energy, regardless of how much energy invested it requires. Naturally there are some limits to this. If EROEI would drop to 2 to 1 we would need to invest 900 units to get the required 1,800 units out (900 surplus) etc., but as long as this doesn't require increasing human capital we can technologically do this. This would then push our energy problem out in the future, unfortunately it would mean that when we're done scraping the bottom of the barrel the collapse would be even more swift than otherwise. There are also some technical limits such as max flow rates of oil etc, but in theory I would say that the robotic revolution that we're currently witnessing is reducing the importance of EROEI.

Your assumption seems to be that it's only human capital that matters when calculating EROEI.  In fact, what matters is the total amount of energy required to get the energy.

The embodied energy could be in the steel piping, the giant Cat D-9s, Humans, or the diesel frack pumps.  The returned energy is in the aggregate amount of energy multiplied by its quality.  So a tonne of anthracite coal has more energy than a tonne of lignite.

I think that human labor is actually the smallest share of EROEI...I haven't run the calculations, but since a single gallon of diesel has 6-weeks of 24/7 human labor embedded within it, I seriously doubt I've got that wrong.

While "robots" is a pretty big catchall term, the effort of drilling 20,000 feet under the North Dakota prairie is not going to be very different if conducted by an entirely automated platform or one with a few roughnecks on it.  The energy cost is contained in the effort to chew through solid rock for 5+ miles and then frack 10,000 feet of that to bits.  Automation doesn't change any of that calculus.  

 

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 448
cmartenson wrote: Stabu
cmartenson wrote:
Stabu wrote:

I'm only partially playing devil's advocate in here, but I've really started to wonder if one reason why things haven't fallen apart as much yet is because EROEI matters less than it used to? Here's my thinking: Let's assume that current society needs 1,000 units of energy and it was previously getting it by burning 1,000 units of fossile fuels with an EROEI of 10 to 1. Therefore, society had to invest 100 units of energy to get the required 1,000 units (900 surplus). Let's now say that EROEI drops to 5 to 1 and therefore society needs to invest 220 units of energy to get the required 1,100 units out (900 surplus). This would be a problem if it necessitated a doubling of the workforce for this pursuit, but with increased technology you now have robotic roughnecks and hence what really matters is to get to the right gross energy, regardless of how much energy invested it requires. Naturally there are some limits to this. If EROEI would drop to 2 to 1 we would need to invest 900 units to get the required 1,800 units out (900 surplus) etc., but as long as this doesn't require increasing human capital we can technologically do this. This would then push our energy problem out in the future, unfortunately it would mean that when we're done scraping the bottom of the barrel the collapse would be even more swift than otherwise. There are also some technical limits such as max flow rates of oil etc, but in theory I would say that the robotic revolution that we're currently witnessing is reducing the importance of EROEI.

Your assumption seems to be that it's only human capital that matters when calculating EROEI.  In fact, what matters is the total amount of energy required to get the energy.

The embodied energy could be in the steel piping, the giant Cat D-9s, Humans, or the diesel frack pumps.  The returned energy is in the aggregate amount of energy multiplied by its quality.  So a tonne of anthracite coal has more energy than a tonne of lignite.

I think that human labor is actually the smallest share of EROEI...I haven't run the calculations, but since a single gallon of diesel has 6-weeks of 24/7 human labor embedded within it, I seriously doubt I've got that wrong.

While "robots" is a pretty big catchall term, the effort of drilling 20,000 feet under the North Dakota prairie is not going to be very different if conducted by an entirely automated platform or one with a few roughnecks on it.  The energy cost is contained in the effort to chew through solid rock for 5+ miles and then frack 10,000 feet of that to bits.  Automation doesn't change any of that calculus. 

I think that Stabu is assuming that the main reason low EROEI is a problem is that with low EROEI, the energy industry to needs to employ large numbers of people - taking human capital from health care, education, law enforcement, etc.  With automation, this won't happen and the only issue becomes getting enough surplus energy to run the rest of society. 

I'm not sure this is true because low EROEI the energy industry also requires larger quantities of raw materials and finished goods (machines, steel pipe, water, trucks to haul it all, etc.) just at the time when it's getting harder to find good quality mineral deposits.  There may be other limitations too.

But he is correct that automation will ease the human labor and supply of skilled labor bottlenecks - although of course it could cause other bigger problems.

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
ERoI - Energy Quality

AKGrannyWGrit

Hopefully this helps;

https://thewodanianethics.com/2017/10/30/energy-quality-the-missing-piece/

It's a paper I wrote recently and sent to the UK's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (not that they asked me for it).

All the best,

Luke

 

 

Pipyman's picture
Pipyman
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 24 2011
Posts: 38
Hmmm

Makes you wonder. But if we're not in the "club", and we never will be, does it matter what goes on behind the doors?

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 129
Stabu's point

I don't know if this was his point or not, but he has highlighted the fact the infrastructure is not a perpetual cost in terms of EROEI. So once a road has been made, pipes run and mine dug, some of the cost has already been spent, that cost is then amortized onto the final product over several years. The actual ongoing cost of extraction is much lower than the total EROEI.

So sure the cost of fracking may be close to break even, but only if you include the sunk costs of making the fracking wells. If you were someone buying bankrupt mines for pennies on the dollar then operating them would be a much better EROEI than making a new one. (Assuming they still have something to extract)

If you were willing to put up with failing infrastructure then this could go on for longer than you might think once you get over the initial write off of the sunk construction costs. (read total market crash and adjustment)

Also, if you include other sunk costs, like bulldozers, pick up trucks, computers, automation systems, there is an awful lot of things that we have sunk money into that are practical and can be leveraged to lower total costs. Things like an industrial town is a sunk cost, the first company in paid a premium, and the rest free load on the roads, workforce, the shops, the medical centers and so on.

He has made me think about the non linear nature of EROEI and both negative and positive feedback loops.

 

Stabu's picture
Stabu
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2011
Posts: 88
Peak Conventional, EROEI and Wasting Energy

As I see it, here's the basic problem: Conventional oil peaked around 2005 (didn't look up the exact date) and yet 12 years (or so) later we're still doing "okay" as a society. Unless I stare carefully at statistics, there's nothing that tells me that we're in an energy crisis. How can this be? The basic explanation would be that the central banks have printed so much money and hence pulled demand forward that it has stopped the economy from going into recession. Partially it also explains why EROEI has not dropped as much, since it has allowed shale energy companies to drill for oil that would have probably otherwise been (even more) uneconomical. The reason I stated EROEI doesn't matter much is that it seems to me that this (and technological advancement) has temporarily enabled us to live as if nothing significant happened around 2005. We had simply continued to get more net energy out by doing more energy extraction even with a falling EROEI. Hence, I think, we're in a peculiar point in history where EROEI doesn't seem to matter. Of course, once this situation ends in 5, 10, 15, 20 etc. years, we're going to fall off even harder, since we spent so much resources that we couldn't really afford just to keep things going. What again is very frustrating to me is that not only are we not doing any of the right things, but we're doing many of the exact wrong things. A great example of this is that the total energy spend of all crypto currency mining, if annualized, is now the equivalent of the entire energy spend of a country with 5 million people with a Western standard of living. All this energy consumption gives society is some ridiculously secure financial transactions that really don't matter and could have been done in a far less energy intensive manner.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5440
On EROEI and Continuing On

The way I see it, conventional oil, which peaked a while ago, was yielding something very impressive - say 25:1 or better returns.  

Or maybe it was 20:1 or even 40:1.  Who knows?  All I know is that until you dip below 10:1 you are safely off the energy cliff.  

So let's imagine that we have 60 mbd of high net energy oil at 25:1 being slowly mixed in with a variety of sources that probably range from 20:1 (deepwater) to 5:1 (shale + tar) to bring us to 78 mbd.  

It will take a long time for the average net energy to decline below 10:1 under such a regime, meaning we will not feel the energy impacts for a while.

In the meantime, fancy financial shenanigans have allowed what erosion there has been to be masked, especially given that the way this funny money has flowed into society it has been concentrated into the hands a very, very tiny minority who have not yet felt the need to, let alone been able to, spend it back into circulation.

All this means is that when (not if) the energy EROEI reality bites it may well be the perfect storm.  All the pent up energy of money tucked away may come roaring out demanding real returns which means high interest rates.  Those in turn will mean vastly higher drilling costs as the cost of capital skyrockets, which then translates into higher oil prices which slam into a mountain of debt.

 At the same time, lower EROEI margins finally bite and fewer things can be supported which drives another stake into the global economic heart.  At some distant point a critical mass of awareness dawns that our entire system of exponential expansion is irrevocably unsustainable and debt-based money shatters as a concept.

That, in turn, crumbles the entire social contract which is based on the illusion that money = power; or, flipped, that your lack of money means you are powerless (i.e. a wage slave).  Then the whole edifice of social hierarchy breaks down and things are chaotic for a while until a new human organizing principle is obtained.

This is the reason why we are doing a Rowe seminar this weekend on "Being."  The rebuilding will require leaders who can and are embodying the new future.   It's not easy letting go of everything you once thought was true and important, but that's what's required to reassemble whatever remains into a coherent plan for living. 

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 391
Thanks Luke & Chris

Luke, great job on your paper, it's well thought out and I hope it gets read.  Chris thanks for the visual, it's one of the best I have seen in a long time.

I was trying to plant a seed in my last post.  A friend of mine is a tinkerer and thinks that since energy isn't created or destroyed just converted that it could be possible to harness energy.  He has said that individuals/inventors (some of his mentors) who work on unique perpetual energy machines have had their work confiscated by 3-letter officials and the statement was "its for national security".  If you think about it what government would ever let their populace have free energy.  It must be controlled and a profit made from it.  So if there is such a thing as an easy way to convert energy we will never know.  In the meantime we watch and are told where we are at in the energy story.  True or not, again we don't know exactly. I trust Chris to share and explain the mainstream narrative.  It is a subject that should be talked about much, much more.  

For your entertainment.

AKGrannyWGrit

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
perpetual energy - not - no conspirency

It is not created or destroyed, but he did not mention the other important energy law, energy moves from concentration to diffusion as it is used. We have built our current lifestyle societies based on access to some very concentrated energy reserves, which become diffuse, little bits of heat everywhere, as we use it.

But, 2 things. First, these laws are for the entire universe. Our planet is not a completely closed system, it radiates energy out, away from the planet to space, but, it receives radiant energy from the sun. So, we actually, from the viewpoint of this planet, have a constant input of energy.  And, energy is concentrated again by life. Living organisms concentrate diffuse energy. Like a tree, firewood, etc... and this is how coal and oil came into being, sunlight initially concentrated by ever more complex levels of life, and then worked on by time and pressure.

There are no perpetual energy machines that violate the laws of thermodynamics. We DO have constant energy input into our system, diffuse radiant energy from the sun. We do have life, which concentrates and organizes energy.

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 391
Perpetual Energy - Not - No Conspiracy

I am not so sure.  There was a time when it was thought man couldn’t run a 4 minute mile, break the sound barrier and only a few short years ago we had telephone party lines.  Heart transplants, space stations, laser beams etc, etc, etc.  Cheap energy from a source we don’t comprehend, it’s entirely possible.  However, we won’t be privy to it.  You see the longer we live the less we should be surprised by what’s possible and the less we really know.

How long ago was it finally determined that a Doctor just washing their hands could save lives?  If as Catherine Austin Futts says there is 20 Trillion dollars missing from our national budget, Then perhaps there are amazing research projects going on we don’t know about?  

Perhaps asking questions is s good thing?

 

 

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 448
mining capital

One way to mask decreasing EROEI for a while (a decade or two or three?) is to decrease investment in maintaining infrastructure and building new infrastructure.  You can get away with this for a while, but then the bridges start to fail,  and the roadways just get too potholed, etc.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5440
The older I get...
AKGrannyWGrit wrote:

I am not so sure.  There was a time when it was thought man couldn’t run a 4 minute mile, break the sound barrier and only a few short years ago we had telephone party lines.  Heart transplants, space stations, laser beams etc, etc, etc.  Cheap energy from a source we don’t comprehend, it’s entirely possible.  However, we won’t be privy to it.  You see the longer we live the less we should be surprised by what’s possible and the less we really know.

How long ago was it finally determined that a Doctor just washing their hands could save lives?  If as Catherine Austin Futts says there is 20 Trillion dollars missing from our national budget, Then perhaps there are amazing research projects going on we don’t know about?  

Perhaps asking questions is s good thing?

 

 

Truthfully, the older I get, the more I have to unlearn.

I used to know a lot when I was younger!

Now? Not so much.

DNA is not a linear string of encoding blocks, but a 3D model that also talks to the outside world.

Consciousness alters experimental phenomenon.

Chloroplasts exploit photons in a quantum state.

On an on.....

I am thrilled to be here now.

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
ERoI - In decline in the UK

Deleted - formatting errors

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
ERoI - In Decline In The UK

Hi Stabu,

I live in the UK so I can't speak for anywhere else. Here in Blighty the University of Leeds has just undertaken a recent study of national UK ERoI levels

https://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/Documents/research/sri/workingpape...

In it they concluded the following;

"Applying the UK IO data, IEA data and MRIO model to equation (5), we calculated

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
Deleted

Having problems with post lengths

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4771
energy = control

I think the secret here is that the EROEI of the marginal barrel may be 3:1, but the majority of the rest of the oil production remains at 30:1.

As long as you don't look at EROEI of marginal barrels, your society works just fine, for a time anyway.  Shale ponzi = a way to not look at the EROEI of the marginal barrel.

Control over energy is an axis of control over society, since energy slaves run our society.  The fact that oil is pulled from the ground and delivered by tanker allows the US Navy to dominate the world.  Example effect: pragmatically speaking, Japan has to be our ally or else no more oil.

Shale is a way to perpetuate the oil-control-axis for a while longer.

Solar + batteries threatens the system.  Solar alone does not.

Any sort of "free energy" would threaten the system.  Oil does not.

(Mainstream) economic science ignores banks, debt and money in their models.  This is great for banks, and is probably no accident.

Current physical science says that "free energy" is impossible.  That's great for the current energy-as-axis-of-control paradigm in exactly that same way.

If UFOs exist, and they visit earth from far away, they probably don't use oil.  Or solar + batteries.  The mere existence of UFOs call into question the basis for the current energy-control axis.

Once you know something is possible, finding a way to build it becomes vastly easier.

Related: it will take you a very long time to find your keys that are sitting in plain view on the kitchen table, if you start from the belief that your keys are not in the kitchen...

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 448
davefairtex wrote: I think
davefairtex wrote:

I think the secret here is that the EROEI of the marginal barrel may be 3:1, but the majority of the rest of the oil production remains at 30:1.

As long as you don't look at EROEI of marginal barrels, your society works just fine, for a time anyway.  Shale ponzi = a way to not look at the EROEI of the marginal barrel.

Dave, I think you're saying that the 3:1 barrels are unprofitable at the highest price that is affordable, but if we fuel a Ponzi scheme to fund their production, then we can ignore that fact for a while.

The alternative is to just allow consumption to fall to the point that the marginal barrel is profitable (deepwater maybe or the few shale sweet spots). 

Of course as more and more 30:1 oil get's replaced with 3:1, consumption would have to drop lower and lower.

But how long can you keep the Ponzi going?  It gets harder as the amount of 3:1 oil needed increases.  And eventually you hit hard limits where it just starts siphoning too many resources from the rest of society to maintain a semblance of the status quo even if the funding keeps flowing.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
AKGrannyWGrit wrote: I am
AKGrannyWGrit wrote:

I am not so sure.  There was a time when it was thought man couldn’t run a 4 minute mile, break the sound barrier and only a few short years ago we had telephone party lines.  Heart transplants, space stations, laser beams etc, etc, etc.  Cheap energy from a source we don’t comprehend, it’s entirely possible.  However, we won’t be privy to it.  You see the longer we live the less we should be surprised by what’s possible and the less we really know.

How long ago was it finally determined that a Doctor just washing their hands could save lives?  If as Catherine Austin Futts says there is 20 Trillion dollars missing from our national budget, Then perhaps there are amazing research projects going on we don’t know about?  

Perhaps asking questions is s good thing?

 

 

 

The perpetual motion machines ideas that are passed around right now are not, not some new energy, etc...

 

Do we understand everything ? No. Asking questions is good, of course. But, there is not some answer right now that is being suppressed. We would like to believe that there is. It gives people hope to think, oh, we will come up with some magic thing. This has been talked about here, even. But, that is dangerous to not see our reality as it is. Should we keep doing research in to understanding the Universe ? Yes ! There is so much we do not understand fully. The conspiracy theory stuff though, not buying it. Dont think it would even be possible. Too many labs are all looking into the same areas.

 

The things you mentioned as examples are not violations of basic laws of physics. We have more to learn about the newer areas of physics. Lots of labs are doing so. A breakthrough there is like Einsteins  insights. Running faster, getting better skilled and more exact surgery, running better phone switchboards were improvements, not something new in basic science. Space stations did not use or make new physics knowledge, we had to do more exact calculations, make materials with better tolerance, etc... but the space propulsion we are using right now is not a new science at all. Nor laser beams.

Br3dS01's picture
Br3dS01
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 21 2011
Posts: 26
EROEI vs $RO$I

$60/bbl Oil Output is being subsidized by cheap $3/mscf Natural Gas (the energy equivalent of $18/bbl oil) Input.

Oil sands synthetic crude output (ER) is subsidized by cheap natural gas input (EI) in the form of power generation, water & process heating, upgrading, etc.

ER, Energy Returned = Crude Oil @ $60/bbl Return

On

EI,    Energy Invested = Natural Gas @ $3/mscf, or $18/bbl Input (i.e. 6 mscf = 1 bbl on an energy equivalence basis).

A meager 3:1 EROEI would thus translate into $180:$18 or half decent 10:1 ROI ($RO$I if you will).

Unconventional oil and gas liquids output is similarly subsidized by cheap natural gas input costs in the form of natural gas and/or bi-fuel driven drilling rigs, frac spreads, processing & transportation facilities, etc.

My simplified, round number take on it... Brad (Calgary, AB)

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
cmartenson
cmartenson wrote:
AKGrannyWGrit wrote:

I am not so sure.  There was a time when it was thought man couldn’t run a 4 minute mile, break the sound barrier and only a few short years ago we had telephone party lines.  Heart transplants, space stations, laser beams etc, etc, etc.  Cheap energy from a source we don’t comprehend, it’s entirely possible.  However, we won’t be privy to it.  You see the longer we live the less we should be surprised by what’s possible and the less we really know.

How long ago was it finally determined that a Doctor just washing their hands could save lives?  If as Catherine Austin Futts says there is 20 Trillion dollars missing from our national budget, Then perhaps there are amazing research projects going on we don’t know about?  

Perhaps asking questions is s good thing?

 

 

Truthfully, the older I get, the more I have to unlearn. I used to know a lot when I was younger! Now? Not so much. DNA is not a linear string of encoding blocks, but a 3D model that also talks to the outside world. Consciousness alters experimental phenomenon. Chloroplasts exploit photons in a quantum state. On an on..... I am thrilled to be here now.

 

Different than a perpetual motion machine that is being suppressed --

 

I have seen for a long time that there is likely ALOT going on in living systems, living organisms, at all levels, down to cells and DNA. Communications, influences, etc.... Living organisms have change, choices, conciousness. Whole different area.

This thread of thought was, I thought, in response to poster here whose friend had been talking about current technology suppressed energy from perpetual motion machines that violated entropy.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4771
how long

QB-

Dave, I think you're saying that the 3:1 barrels are unprofitable at the highest price that is affordable, but if we fuel a Ponzi scheme to fund their production, then we can ignore that fact for a while.

But how long can you keep the Ponzi going?  It gets harder as the amount of 3:1 oil needed increases.  And eventually you hit hard limits where it just starts siphoning too many resources from the rest of society to maintain a semblance of the status quo even if the funding keeps flowing.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

And its certainly not a long term plan.  It just keeps the fiction of normalcy going a bit longer.  The great unwashed see low oil prices, so they don't question how it happens - "technology" - "shale miracle" - "energy independence" - "drill, baby, drill."

And it does have a time limit on it.  And we might be at that time limit right now.

Could it have happened without the hunt for yield driven by the Fed?  I dunno.  Possibly not.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4771
laws of physics

mntnhousepermi-

The things you mentioned as examples are not violations of basic laws of physics. We have more to learn about the newer areas of physics. Lots of labs are doing so. A breakthrough there is like Einsteins  insights. Running faster, getting better skilled and more exact surgery, running better phone switchboards were improvements, not something new in basic science.

If UFOs are real, and have traveled across interstellar distances to visit us, then our understanding of the basic laws of physics are...shall we say, incomplete.

Our basic physics still doesn't understand why things more or less stop working properly when you look at things too closely.  I'm referring to that double slit experiment, of course.  That puzzle has been in place for almost 100 years, and still no real progress has been made on a model that can explain that in the context of our "basic physics" view of the universe.

Our society at large has some huge problems in a large number of critical areas.  There's sickcare, and illegal drugs, banking, economics, food production, news - and I'm guessing that's also true in energy technology also.

The gang at the top really like the status quo to remain intact.  Everywhere.  That's my observation.  If there's a conspiracy (or - let's just say a plan everyone in banking agrees with) to only fund economists who espouse banker-friendly theories that don't look at banks, debt, and money in their models, and that has been largely successful in focusing the institutional energy away from our massive debt accumulation - what else might be going on in other fields?

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
Reality Stranger than Fiction

mntnhousepermi, writers like Joseph P Farrell talk about a breakaway civilization; a small group keeping some techno. breakthroughs secret and being developed by favored companies such as Lockheed. " The Day After Rosewell" book by Colonel Corso recounts back engineering some of these products. Elites it seems, don't necessarily share discoveries or money.

Also, many pursuing" free" energy products have met early deaths.

See also " The Hunt for Zero Point" - Nick Pope, for hidden energy

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1661
The unknown: String Theory

Strings:  small energy packets (10^-33 cm in length) that pop in and out of existence from the background "zero point" field some 10^15 times per second.  These strings "may" explain all mater, energy, light, heat and gravity.  Maybe.....

"One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments"

The Calabi-Yau manifold is a shape of spacetime that allows 6 dimensional string theory to remain valid.

The Wikipedia String Theory entry provides a taste of this field.  

The bottom line is that we haven't a clue what the universe is made of or how it is organized.

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 166
UK's EROI in 2012 was 6.2

having been 9.6 in 2000. See page 19 of the report.

If the rate of decline has been constant, the EROI would be just over 4 today.

The report says that an EROI of at least 11 is required for continuous economic growth.

Hmmm.

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
ERoI - In Decline In The UK

(Hopefully it all goes through this time)

 

Hi Stabu,

 

I live in the UK so I can't speak for anywhere else. Here in Blighty the University of Leeds has just undertaken a recent study of national UK ERoI levels

 

https://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/Documents/research/sri/workingpapers/SRIPs-103a.pdf

In it they conclude that the ERoInat for the UK increased from 5.6 in 1997 to a maximum of 9.6 in 2000 before gradually falling to a value of 6.2 in 2012.

Note: ERoI (soc) developed by Hall et. al and ERoI (Nat) developed in the study above don't appear to equate to the same measurement which comes down to how the methodology was developed.

The implications for the UK have been noticeable (IMO). We have the following;

- No more free university tuition (I think students can now expect to pay £9k a year)

- the prevalence of JAM families (Just About Managing)

- Deteriorating Prison System

- Longer waiting times for operations on the National Health Service

- An increase in homelessness

Just to name a few.

It would be an interesting discussion though to see just what level of failing infrastructure we could handle.

PS. AKGrannyWGrit, thanks for the kind words.

All the best,

Luke 

ezlxq1949's picture
ezlxq1949
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 29 2009
Posts: 166
Solar + batteries resisted in Australia

davefairtex wrote,

Solar + batteries threatens the system.  Solar alone does not.

In the sunny land of Oz, this certainly seems to be the case. Our federal government is strongly resisting any major solar + battery project, and is fanatically, monomaniacally, irrationally promoting coal mines. (To the extent that I wonder if they have been instructed to do so.)

The state of South Australia has taken up Elon Musk on an offer to install the world's biggest Li-Ion battery there, within 100 days or it's free. So far it's halfway there and still on time. Our federal government has been lavish in its ridicule, but to no avail.

The general public are adopting batteries too: I have one for my home (not a Tesla Wall).

So, ignoring other matters such as whether renewables really can replace any amount of fossil fuels, it seems that in the matter of solar + batteries in Oz, "They" are thwarted for the time being.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 752
No, no, Northampton County has the answer.

The solar plus batteries doesn't threaten the system, as long as you levy huge taxes against those who had bought and installed solar, "because they aren't paying their fair share".

Northampton, Va came up with that one.

All of a sudden, a technology that was responsible, and now a positive investment, becomes something that destroys you so you can't pay the mortgage, having already committed under far different terms.

Let that be an example to the rest of you.

Chickens are for eating. Never forget it.

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 448
Give details on Northampton solar tax, please

Could you give details on these solar taxes in Northampton, Virginia, please?  If it involves net metering in which people can sell their excess power back to the grid at retail prices whenever it happens to be available, yes, they aren't paying their fair share.

Solar power is not available in the early evening when power demand peaks and there are plenty of sunny days that are mild enough so that air conditioning demand is low.  So they have a sweetheart deal where they get to sell their power back at the full retail rate even if it's not needed.  Meanwhile, they still use as much electricity as they want so that a huge capacity of natural gas and other peaking power needs to be maintained for them delivered over a grid they are not paying much for anymore (because their net electric usage is near zero and with current billing practices the delivery charge is only on your net usage).  Of course this problem gets worse as more homes install solar - now everyone has power to sell when it's not needed.

Large scale power producers sell power into the grid at the going wholesale price or they sell tomorrow's power today if they think the price will be lower tomorrow.  They also step the voltage up and deliver it directly to the high voltage transmission systems at their expense while homeowners rely on the local distribution lines and transformers/substations that were designed to deliver power one way, not to accept power from small-scale home-based producers.  This is not a problem if only a few people have solar panels, but becomes a big problem if lots install them.  Wholesale prices vary greatly on occasion, but they average 30-40% of retail.  Of course, wholesale responds  to the market, so the net effect of solar is to cause prices to crash during the day due to oversupply and maybe rise a little in the evening.  This of course, makes it hard for the large scale producers to remain profitable, damping investment.

Of course, changing the terms of a deal partway into a long term investment is not playing fair even if it was a stupid deal on the part of those who are responsible for the electric grid.  So grandfather in those who already installed their system and don't offer the deal to those who install in the future.

Now if homeowners want to be off the grid, they should be able to do that without any tax consequences.  If they want to remain on the grid, and they install batteries and are willing to:

  1. store their daytime production and sell it at wholesale when the price is higher in the evening and
  2. pay their share of reconfiguring substations that will be required as more and more people install solar and want to sell it

then they will be paying their fair share.

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
I'm wondering SP if you've

I'm wondering SP if you've seen the UK Development Secretary's been caught secretly meeting Israeli gov people. Questions in the House and recalled home.  Very significant.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
sand_puppy wrote: Strings: 
sand_puppy wrote:

Strings:  small energy packets (10^-33 cm in length) that pop in and out of existence from the background "zero point" field some 10^15 times per second.  These strings "may" explain all mater, energy, light, heat and gravity.  Maybe.....

"One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments"

The Calabi-Yau manifold is a shape of spacetime that allows 6 dimensional string theory to remain valid.

The Wikipedia String Theory entry provides a taste of this field.  

The bottom line is that we haven't a clue what the universe is made of or how it is organized.

 

Yes. This is a new area if knowledge and inquiry, and we have alot to learn

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
davefairtex
davefairtex wrote:

mntnhousepermi-

The things you mentioned as examples are not violations of basic laws of physics. We have more to learn about the newer areas of physics. Lots of labs are doing so. A breakthrough there is like Einsteins  insights. Running faster, getting better skilled and more exact surgery, running better phone switchboards were improvements, not something new in basic science.

If UFOs are real, and have traveled across interstellar distances to visit us, then our understanding of the basic laws of physics are...shall we say, incomplete.

Our basic physics still doesn't understand why things more or less stop working properly when you look at things too closely.  I'm referring to that double slit experiment, of course.  That puzzle has been in place for almost 100 years, and still no real progress has been made on a model that can explain that in the context of our "basic physics" view of the universe.

Our society at large has some huge problems in a large number of critical areas.  There's sickcare, and illegal drugs, banking, economics, food production, news - and I'm guessing that's also true in energy technology also.

The gang at the top really like the status quo to remain intact.  Everywhere.  That's my observation.  If there's a conspiracy (or - let's just say a plan everyone in banking agrees with) to only fund economists who espouse banker-friendly theories that don't look at banks, debt, and money in their models, and that has been largely successful in focusing the institutional energy away from our massive debt accumulation - what else might be going on in other fields?

 

You are basing an argument on what you see as a factual statement -- Alien space travel. That is not a proven fact. You are speaking from a point of, well, we all know that..... a common base that we do not all share.

We absolutely do not understand why small particles change behavior in the way you mentioned -- we seem to have a ways to go to do so. I am sure we will be adding to our knowledge in this field, if our civilization lasts long enough. And, if that happens, we will add to our knowledge, ie. the new rules for how these real small level particles and such behave and how that fits in with our longer observed macro level observations/physics laws.

None of this is in anyway showing or proving or anything the premise that at this time we have suppressed perpetual motion type working models, etc....

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
There is some evidence we're

There is some evidence we're in a controlled environment on planet earth. Atomic testing being monitored by ufos - Roswell.   A   breakaway civilization giving us integrated circuits, Fiber Optics,Lasers, seeded to corporate giants -The Day after Roswell. Attempts to develop " free "

energy being frustrated and research into LNER being bad for one's career and health. Animal and human abductions for experimentation and sexual hybrid experiments- Linda Martin Howe, Dr. David M Jacobs, et al.

But evidence is only facts we are willing to accept as such. Some things don't change much. 

Maybe we're being hot-housed in more ways than one.

Andy Grove of Intel did say you had to be paranoid. Of course as Rommel might say, you have to be paranoid with fingerspitzgefhul, ie. fingertip feel.

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1661
Expect No Consensus on Novel Viewpoints

I am convinced that there are deep characterological difference in our relationship to novel and unproven ideas.  Some are excited and eager to explore (and perhaps accept with too little evidence), and some are repulsed and vigorously reject until the ideas are widely regarded as "proven."  The diffusion of new ideas from conception to "generally regarded as proven truth" can take a generation or more.  And perhaps longer if there is active, coordinated suppression of the idea.

Thus, the different characterologic types will NOT agree when novel explanations and ideas are floated. This is independent of the content of the idea. 

One effect is that platforms regarded as "authoritative," like the New York Times for example, are able to tell us what is proven and generally accepted as true.  They hold great power over the collective understanding.

And Overton's Window is the label by which "respectable people" are restricted to only talking about the proven and widely accepted as true, material.  To step outside "Overton's Window" makes a person vulnerable to being called a "kook" by the respectable people.

 

 

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
To follow where reason leads

To follow where reason leads those so disposed one must check out The Greys.

      google: bibliotechapleyades.net vida_alien/esp_vida_alien_18za.htm

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
sand_puppy wrote: I am
sand_puppy wrote:

I am convinced that there are deep characterological difference in our relationship to novel and unproven ideas.  Some are excited and eager to explore (and perhaps accept with too little evidence), and some are repulsed and vigorously reject until the ideas are widely regarded as "proven."  The diffusion of new ideas from conception to "generally regarded as proven truth" can take a generation or more.  And perhaps longer if there is active, coordinated suppression of the idea.

Thus, the different characterologic types will NOT agree when novel explanations and ideas are floated. This is independent of the content of the idea. 

One effect is that platforms regarded as "authoritative," like the New York Times for example, are able to tell us what is proven and generally accepted as true.  They hold great power over the collective understanding.

And Overton's Window is the label by which "respectable people" are restricted to only talking about the proven and widely accepted as true, material.  To step outside "Overton's Window" makes a person vulnerable to being called a "kook" by the respectable people.

 

 

 

No, there are many points in between. There is being totally open to new ideas, but we do not accept them as fact without either alot of consistent observation and/or experiments that are replicated by different labs with the same results. I do not take news sources as fact, at all. When I look at studies, I have to go back until I find the source material and read it myself. What did they do ? What questions were asked ? Not what some newspaper says ! I have enough educational background in Physics and engineering to understand the points being made and the actual reports, I do not need them deciphered by a third party. I understand the scientific method and how and why it is used. I have a degree in Engineering, years of physics, classes at the graduated level in energy conversion and have worked at one of the Labs in Livermore, seen the machine and experiments done for Fusion research, etc.... I am not being fooled by any newspaper. Being open to new ideas does not mean excepting as fact statements by random people without evidence. I have even gone and read various things sent to me by well meaning people not in the industry that they think proves something, and so far these things have not had any data or proof. I have known physicists that have proved things in my textbooks that used to be theory, I know a few bright young minds presently studying physics and the intelligence and rigor they bring to the field, as well as all their peers doing the same. There are alot of interesting things they hope to be working on in applied physics. Many things do get talked about by respectable people in science and engineering. A lot of what ifs and wouldn't it be cool, and maybe this research will lead to .... which is entirely different than claiming some broad conspiracy and suppression of basic knowledge, or perpatual motion machines and aliens. Everyone thinks it would be cool if..... many think there must be other intelligent life, etc..... But, that is entirely different from claiming that there is a conspiracy suppressing knowledge of it.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 124
sand_puppy wrote: I am
sand_puppy wrote:

I am convinced that there are deep characterological difference in our relationship to novel and unproven ideas.  Some are excited and eager to explore (and perhaps accept with too little evidence), and some are repulsed and vigorously reject until the ideas are widely regarded as "proven."  The diffusion of new ideas from conception to "generally regarded as proven truth" can take a generation or more.  And perhaps longer if there is active, coordinated suppression of the idea.

Thus, the different characterologic types will NOT agree when novel explanations and ideas are floated. This is independent of the content of the idea. 

One effect is that platforms regarded as "authoritative," like the New York Times for example, are able to tell us what is proven and generally accepted as true.  They hold great power over the collective understanding.

And Overton's Window is the label by which "respectable people" are restricted to only talking about the proven and widely accepted as true, material.  To step outside "Overton's Window" makes a person vulnerable to being called a "kook" by the respectable people.

 

 

 

No, there are many points in between. There is being totally open to new ideas, but we do not accept them as fact without either alot of consistent observation and/or experiments that are replicated by different labs with the same results. I do not take news sources as fact, at all. When I look at studies, I have to go back until I find the source material and read it myself. What did they do ? What questions were asked ? Not what some newspaper says ! I have enough educational background in Physics and engineering to understand the points being made and the actual reports, I do not need them deciphered by a third party. I understand the scientific method and how and why it is used. I have a degree in Engineering, years of physics, classes at the graduated level in energy conversion and have worked at one of the Labs in Livermore, seen the machine and experiments done for Fusion research, etc.... I am not being fooled by any newspaper. Being open to new ideas does not mean excepting as fact statements by random people without evidence. I have even gone and read various things sent to me by well meaning people not in the industry that they think proves something, and so far these things have not had any data or proof. I have known physicists that have proved things in my textbooks that used to be theory, I know a few bright young minds presently studying physics and the intelligence and rigor they bring to the field, as well as all their peers doing the same. There are alot of interesting things they hope to be working on in applied physics. Many things do get talked about by respectable people in science and engineering. A lot of what ifs and wouldn't it be cool, and maybe this research will lead to .... which is entirely different than claiming some broad conspiracy and suppression of basic knowledge, or perpatual motion machines and aliens. Everyone thinks it would be cool if..... many think there must be other intelligent life, etc..... But, that is entirely different from claiming that there is a conspiracy suppressing knowledge of it.

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 357
It's helpful to remember

It's helpful to remember there seems to be many dimensions to our world. If there are beings more powerful mentally than ourselves might they not treat us as we mistreat sensitive lesser creatures. They may not be all friendly.  Suppose we are just useful biological material to them. Let's hope they bring their own food and don't read Jonathan Swift's humorous  "A Modest Proposal "about eating children.

It used to be called body snatching. Of course the doctors who paid for them only wanted to help humanity. Like Chinese medics who buy the organs of executed prisioners.  My local cemetery has watchtowers and high walls to try and stop them. 

Reason wanders into strange places.

DennisC's picture
DennisC
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2011
Posts: 227
Prepare to be Harvested

At least you get to watch some nice videos with pretty sunsets.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments