[pup55]

Actually, Johndenver, what you are describing is probably what will actually happen in some form.

There are a couple of issues with the calculations:

First of all, no one has mentioned population increase. At a rate of 1.5% increase, which is about what it is, you will have to have this much energy increase to break even on per-capita energy consumption. If oil declines 3% that means gas and coal have to grow about 4.5% each to make up for the shortfall plus population growth. If gas can't grow, that means double the growth for coal.

Second of all, the numbers above are no doubt converted into "barrel of oil equivalent" and does not consider the fact that in order to increase the amount of energy from coal by X percent, you have to dig out of the ground 1.5X amount of coal because of the lower BTU per ton.

So maybe if the 4.5% is correct, you will have to have around 7% annual increase in coal mining, but that is probably conservative because if you then have to convert coal into electricity, you lose some BTU's in the transfer.

Still, I am not ready to dismiss this as a possibility. It's just going to be difficult, expensive and painful because this assumes just breaking even, and no consumption and/or economic growth.

The "plan B" that people are talking about will probably be a lot like what you say.

[FatherOfTwo]

I think the important point is that once it is clear oil is declining, the scenario John lays out is exactly the route that will be pursued. What other choice is there? (Aside from a fundamental rethink of the problems, but that's about as likely as winning the lottery) Whether or not we'll be successful is open for debate.

There are two wildcards which will trump this scenario from taking place: nuclear war and financial meltdown. Large scale conventional wars could also put a serious kaibosh on things.

[nero]

This is almost exactly the scenario I would call the "soft landing scenario". It does entail a wrenching recession/ depression, even John agrees with that. His point is that at some point the total energy available will begin to increase again as other non-renewables grow in importance. I disagree with Pup55's point that this is missing population growth. Since much of that population growth in America is due to immigration legal and otherwise, it isn't a given that the trend will continue while the US economy is in recession/depression. I also disagree with Pup55's 7% per annum figure for coal production. This seems to me to entirely neglect the demand destruction due to the hard recession that John is forecasting.

Replacing oil with other fossil fuels is not sustainable yet is also almost inevitable. This soft landing scenario to me is the most likely. To suggest a hard landing I believe requires you to assume that there is something fundamentally fragile about our society that will lead to collapse under the strain caused by the hard recession/depression. I don't dismiss this I do find it very alarming that the vast majority of people in the West no longer have the skills to keep themselves alive in the event that they are cast onto their own resources. On the other hand I think our society is one of the most flexible and adaptable ever and will adapt in suprising ways to the crisis.

[Free]

Remember in the short term it's not so much about how much energy can be replaced by other sources, but about the price of all sorts of energy, and about the economy which depends on low prices. Even now, with relatively low increases in oil prices, the prices of electricity or natural gas also have increased prices.
And once there are really big price spikes, there might not be a necessity to replace oil as energy source, because oil could be on record lows due to a world economy shattered in pieces.

[johnmarkos]

So, imagine total energy after the peak, declining by 1 or 2% a year. At some point, the decline in oil (which is getting smaller every year) will be compensated by growth in the non-oil sources, and the curve will stop falling. For convenience, call the subsequent period of new growth "The Rebound". At the latest, I feel it will begin 10 or 15 years after the peak.

A couple of comments. All the sources you mentioned except renewables have pollution problems. Natural gas, the cleanest of the non-renewables, is in decline in North America. Even though it is clean, burning natural gas produces carbon dioxide. Coal is filthy and nuclear has a waste problem. (Note: if you don't believe nuclear waste is a big deal, please point me to a thread or link where this is explained in more detail.)

So we're left with renewables, which I think are splendid but which would take a massive infrastructure change to implement on a large scale.

Also, if we eliminate the personal automobile, why do we need more energy (in the U.S.) than we're using now? I've already described how easy it is to live a prosperous, comfortable life on 200 kwh/month (~33% of average California electricity consumption). With efficient lighting and appliances, it should be easy to get to 100 kwh/month (~17% of average California electricity consumption).

I think industry could cut its energy expenditures by a similar percentage with no decrease in productivity. For example, in IT (the industry I'm most familiar with), server farms could implement power management schemes (such as those used on laptops) on all their processors. That would probably cut power use by at least 50%, since most server farms are well below 50% CPU utilization. Also, I think if power got more expensive, we'd start seeing rack mount boxes with laptop chips inside. Lop off another >50%. Take away all the employees' desktop boxes and give 'em laptops too. Then send 'em all home to telecommute. Whoa! Where'd the electricity bill go?

[nero]

So we're left with renewables, which I think are splendid but which would take a massive infrastructure change to implement on a large scale.

Woh this is moving the goal posts big time! Not only are you requiring a replacement for oil but it also has to be environmentally benign? What world do you live on? We're going to use the dirty stuff, environmental issues will be a secondary consideration.

[johnmarkos]

Woh this is moving the goal posts big time! Not only are you requiring a replacement for oil but it also has to be environmentally benign? What world do you live on? We're going to use the dirty stuff, environmental issues will be a secondary consideration.

I live on the same planet as everyone else here. That's why I want the replacement to be environmentally benign.

When the financial losses from global climate change begin to exceed the value of the energy gained from using the dirty stuff, maybe we won't. If we made renewables cheaper than the dirty stuff, that would also promote their use. Hence the need for a big research effort, a la Richard Smalley's nickel and dime solution.

Of course, there's a big difference between what we should do and what I think we will do.

[marko]

I do not share John Denver's optimism. I do not see how we can have an energy rebound if the information presented in Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over is correct, which I suspect it is.

First, no energy source has an EROEI or energy density anything like petroleum. Natural gas comes close, but it has peaked in North America and is about a decade from peaking worldwide at current rates of use, much less the increased rates this scenario calls for. For every 3% decline in petroleum, you need something like a 5% increase in coal by weight. Second, given that petroleum is mainly used for transportation, for the economy to stand still, much less grow, any new energy source must be converted into a form that can be used for transportation, generally at a substantial loss of energy. For example, if coal is our main alternative energy source (as I think it must be, for reasons I will explain), we can use some of it to power increased train travel, but a fair proportion of coal's energy is lost in producing steam and in hauling the weight of the coal itself on the train. For transportation to locations not on rail lines, we will have to convert the coal somehow into electricity or hydrogen, which will involve further energy loss. Just to make up for a 3% annual decline in petroleum, we could well have to increase coal production by 12-20% per year, every year. That means doubling in no more than 8 years, quadrupling in no more than 16. This is hard to imagine and would quickly bring us to peak coal. Though our lifetimes might be shortened by the pollution. Some have argued that we are at peak coal right about now, in which case this scenario is completely impossible.

There is really not much alternative to coal because, as someone else has pointed out, hydropower is tapped out, and nuclear power has an extremely low EROEI and would require the construction of thousands of new power plants worldwide in a context of economic disaster, with capital and affordable energy (for building the plants) in very short supply. Renewables just cannot provide the volume needed to replace the shortfalls in other sources.

Despite all this, I do think that we will have rebounds. I think that we will have an economic depression, probably as the current economic cycle unwinds, but perhaps not until 2010-2015, brought on in part by oil prices and in part by irresponsible macroeconomic policies. This depression will bring a sharp drop in energy consumption and a shallower drop in real energy prices. There will then be a rebound, to a higher level of energy production/consumption that is, however, lower than the present level. This will be followed by another severe recession and a decline in energy consumption to a lower level than the previous low, followed by a rebound to a lower peak than the previous peak, and so on, until we reach a level of energy consumption similar to that of around 1800, where it will level off if we are lucky.

Coal is what we will have to fall back on, because

[jato]

Everybody: I couldn't help but notice that no one has commented on "The Rebound". Do you believe that a rebound in total energy production is impossible?

Yes, it is impossible. It MAY have been possible if we had started 20 years ago.

[PhilBiker]

I do not see how we can have an energy rebound if the information presented in Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over is correct, which I suspect it is.

Heinberg's "The Party's Over" is an exellent tome about energy, but his depth of research into nuclear energy is extremely shallow. He does not address nuclear except as barely more than a sidelbar item.

First, no energy source has an EROEI or energy density anything like petroleum.

Nuclear has the potential to have an EROEI much higher than petroleum if we're willing to put the effort into using it. We just need to approach it as an industrial possibility instead of fearing it as a "radioactive disaster waiting to happen". There's much more of a chance of a chemical plant in North Jersey going Bhopal on us than there is of a similarly destructive nuclear event, we aren't abandoning chemical processing are we?

Do some independant research into the real plusses and minuses of nuclear power, and be aware that much of the anti-nuclear material is extremely reactionary scare mongering.

[Ludi]

(Note: if you don't believe nuclear waste is a big deal, please point me to a thread or link where this is explained in more detail.)

Do some independant research into the real plusses and minuses of nuclear power, and be aware that much of the anti-nuclear material is extremely reactionary scare mongering.

Please direct me to some information which explains in detail why nuclear waste is no big deal.

[johnmarkos]

Second, given that petroleum is mainly used for transportation, for the economy to stand still, much less grow, any new energy source must be converted into a form that can be used for transportation, generally at a substantial loss of energy.

Why? A lot of that transportation use is waste. This morning as I was bicycling to work, I saw them all in their cars, one person per SUV. These people aren't contributing to the economy as they drive to work! They might as well be at home, surfing the Internet and maybe buying things! Besides, they could telecommute. They are Californians, who as pup55 pointed out, don't produce much tangible stuff. In the San Francisco Bay Area, much of the work is done BKAC (between keyboard and chair).

Renewables just cannot provide the volume needed to replace the shortfalls in other sources.

Is that so? Please elaborate. If we ditch the personal automobile, I think they can provide all the energy we need. However, I don't buy the EROEI argument when applied to renewables.

[OilyMon]

An increase in energy production is guaranteed especially after 10 to 15 years. The only problem is it will never again be as high as it is right now. I'm in agreement with the recession reboud- recession rebound idea as oil becomes increasingly more and more expensive. That is unless there is a hard crash.

One of the earlier points made about the automobile industry in the west dissolving is very true. The problem with this is that if it does one of the central supporting structures of the Western economy is removed. ... and it all came tumbling down... Everythin in the system we operate from is so closely interdependent that slight inconsistencies with our plans cause a ripple effect that once went around the country, but now goes around the whole globe. What tangled webs we weave, huh?

[Leanan]

Nuclear has the potential to have an EROEI much higher than petroleum if we're willing to put the effort into using it.

I don't think so. The Dept. of Energy lists nuclear fusion as potentionally having a EROEI of 25, if we ever get it working. That's less than Middle East oil. (And I don't think we're going to get fusion working. We've poured billions of dollars into it since the '70s, to no avail.)

And remember, not everyone is as nuclear-phobic as we are. They've embraced nuclear power in other countries, like Japan. Only to find it's dangerous, expensive, and not really worth it. Now, it might be worth it when oil is $400 a barrel or whatever...but if nuclear really had an EROEI higher than petroleum, wouldn't other countries have discovered this? Instead, France, Japan, etc., are shutting down their breeder reactors, because they are too expensive. Not even energy-positive, according to some.

[JohnDenver]

pup55,
Here's another calculation:
Start with the DOE figures for U.S. consumption in quads for 2002:

Total: 97.71
Coal(C): 22.18
Gas(G): 23.08
Petroleum products(P): 38.40
Nuclear(N): 8.15
Renewables(R): 5.9

Suppose there is a 3% drop in P, to 38.40(.97)=37.24

The total amount of lost energy is 38.4-37.24=1.16 quads

We can divide this loss proportionally to C, G, N and R. The assignment comes out to be (in quads):
C: .43
G: .45
N: .16
R: .11

If each of C, G, N and R can produce that much more, the loss in oil energy can be completely compensated (i.e. .43+.45+.16+.11=1.16).
Doing the calculation, it turns out that each of C, G, N and R must increase by 1.9% per annum to totally compensate for the loss of oil energy.

That's a surprisingly low rate of growth, achieved by dividing the burden of compensation evenly among the alternatives.

So what are the forecasted growth rates for C, G, N and R for a given country? C+G+N+R can probably mask peak oil and allow total energy to grow (or at least stabilize) even after peak oil occurs. How fast can R grow (2%, 3%, 6%?), and how big can it get? What is the forecasted growth in G over the next 10 years for the U.S.? I would be very surprised if it was negative. LNG import facilities are being built. Where will they be sourced, and what is their scheduled capacity? If you knew that, you could calculate the expected growth in G. I would bet the US can compensate by importing gas, for as long as a decade -- much as they have compensated by importing crude oil after the 1970 lower-48 peak.

[MicroHydro]

It is too late to avoid a crash, but there could be a rebound decades later.

Vestas reports complete life cycle EROEI of 35 on their newest offshore wind turbines. Note that is comparable to the EROEI of a young oil field. Denmark is already 20% wind-electric.

In addition, after a production life of 20 years, old wind turbines could be recycled. The aluminum would still be there, it would not revert to bauxite ore. Likewise, the offshore pylons should be good for more than 20 years. The Golden Gate bridge towers are 68 years young.

So, energy production need not drop forever. On the far side of the crash, it could increase again with wind as a one primary source. Pumping water uphill is a pretty obvious energy storage method for an offshore wind farm, so the problem of intermittent wind electric production is solvable.

[JohnDenver]

The GW Bush speech in today's news is classic C+G+N+R strategy. Let's start building nuclear (N) and boosting LNG imports (G). If you can keep those two growing, you're on your way to equalling/outgrowing any oil depletion. I believe Bush was also touting "clean coal" (C) a month or two ago. And isn't Bush's Crawford ranch a model of design using renewable energy (R)? So you've got all the pieces of the puzzle. Granted, the policy is not quite pedal-to-the-metal yet, but the outline of the solution is being pushed by the executive branch, and we're still in the pre-peak or plateau period.

Also, one more term should be added to the solution: K for Konservation. If you can split the burden amongst 5 terms instead of 4, you can again lessen the burden on each. This would be where the tax breaks on hybrid vehicles come in.

Here's an investment idea: EBO (Everything But Oil). Clearly that's where the growth is going to be.

I'm pretty amazed at how quickly energy policy has shaped up. It's been less than a year since I joined this forum, and the contours of the debate have shifted rapidly. It seems like ANWR and nuclear went, in no time at all, from "What, are you crazy!" to "Dang, we better get busy." We're responding surprisingly well to the peak oil signal.

Edit: Konservation, not Konsumption.

[Leanan]

Vestas reports complete life cycle EROEI of 35 on their newest offshore wind turbines. Note that is comparable to the EROEI of a young oil field.

Not really. Our young oil fields had EROEIs of 200, maybe 300. Middle East oil has EROEIs of about 30, but that includes shipping the stuff here.

Denmark is already 20% wind-electric.

But they wouldn't be at that point without generous government subsidies. (Something we should consider. But probably won't, given our current allergy to big government.)

If we take personal transportation out of the mix, then we may be able to replace the energy from oil. But that would still mean peak oil was peak energy. Indeed, we'd probably have little incentive to get our energy production back up to previous levels.

[PhilBiker]

Please direct me to some information which explains in detail why nuclear waste is no big deal.

I'm not your research assistant. Google and other tools are readily at your disposal.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but no more of a problem than chemical waste products. One could say that nucelar wast is less of a problem than chemical waste in some ways. At least in a hundred thousand years the once-through nuclear waste will be benign. The Dioxin (and benzene, and ???) will still be dangerously toxic.

The reason that nuclear waste is so much bigger a problem in the USA than it is elsewhere is because we have a policy of not recycling the leftover material from our "once-through" reactors. This policy is idiotic. Recycling material makes for much shorter-lived final waste. New design reactors, particularly MSRs (Molten Sodium Reactors or Molten Salt Reactors - look it up on google) can even burn the waste with minimal recycling.

[JohnDenver]

A couple of data points on nuclear power:

"...a 1,000 MW power plant consumes only 30 tons of fuel per year if it uses nuclear power, as opposed to 2.2 million tons for a coal-fueled plant, 1.4 million tons for an oil fueled plant, and 1.1 million tons for a natural-gas-fueled plant."

"If half the electricity consumed by the average Japanese person over the course of his or her life were provided by nuclear power, the resulting vitrified wastes would be about the size of three golf balls."

From "Keeping the Lights On in Japan" by Yoichi Masuzoe.