Peak Oil

The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages


News related to dwindling reserves, new finds, and PO articles.

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 4068

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:29 am

Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Post Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:25 pm

The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

http://energyshortage.org/#

Good site to check the pulse of the collapse.

Industrial Civilization doesn't evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes "the necessary physical prerequisites" for its own existence. It's short-term, unsustainable. "This is a one shot affair.... there will be one chance, and one chance only."

Energy-use per person is used as a measurable index of industrialization. In 1989, I proposed the Olduvai theory of Industrial Civilization, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Industrial Civilization can be described by a single pulse waveform of duration X, as measured by average energy-use per person per year.
The life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than one-hundred (100) years: i.e., X < 100 years.
In 1989 I postulated that per capita energy-use had peaked and was already on the decline. But back then I lacked sufficient data to test the theory.

By 1996, however, I had successfully tested the Olduvai theory against numerous sets of data. Four of these tests are graphed in Figure 2. The following facts emerge.

On the average, world per capita energy-use reached a maximum value (i.e., a peak) in 1977.
The 1977-1995 rate of decline has averaged 0.90% per year.
Per capita energy-use will continue to decline as long as the world population growth rate exceeds the energy growth rate.
If the decline continues (and extinction is avoided), human societies will bottom out at the subsistence level of energy-use.
The Olduvai theory explains the Figure 2 data, but the exponential-growth theory (of mainstream economics) and the steady-state theory both fail.

The Olduvai theory cannot be overthrown (i.e., scientifically rejected) by outrage or indignation. However, it can be overthrown by either, (1) demonstrating that the four sets of data in Figure 2 are in error, or (2) by gathering additional data over the next few decades and demonstrating that the Olduvai theory cannot explain that data. In any case, the data will be the final arbiter.


http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

Image

1. Pre Industrial Phase [c. 3 000 000 BC to 1765]

A - Tool making (c. 3 000 000 BC)
B - Fire used (c. 1 000 000 BC)
C - Noelithic agricultural revolution (c. 8 000 BC)
D - Watts steam engine of 1765 Industrial Phase (1930-2025)
2. Industrial Phase [1930 to 2025, estimated ]

E - Per capita energy-use 37% of peak value
F - Peak energy-use
G - Present energy-use
H - Per capita energy-use 37% of peak value
3. Post Industrial Phase [c. 2100 and beyond ]

J, K, and L = Recurring future attempts at industrialization fail.
Other scenarios are possible.
[Note 5: In Figure 1, it may be helpful to think of the curve as income per person per year in dollars. Or perhaps as material standard of living. Better yet, just remember the little cartoon folks.]

Figure 1 divides the very long span of human history into three phases: (1) PreIndustrial, (2) Industrial, and (3)Post-Industrial. Seven events are marked on the left part of the curve (i.e., points A through G). Likewise, five hypothetical events are marked on the future part of the curve (i.e., H through L).

Phase 1, the Pre-Industrial Phase, spans thousands of millennia of sustainable conditions when society was powered exclusively by (renewable) solar energy. It began some three million years ago when our hominid ancestors started making simple tools (point A, Figure 1). The tools, in turn, made possible greater energy-use in such forms as food, fiber and shelter. Epic milestones leisurely passed, including the use of fire at about one million BCE and the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution at about 8,000 BCE. The end of the Pre-Industrial Phase is marked at 1765, the year James Watt invented the condensing steam engine (point D, Figure 1).

Phase 1 was followed by a transition period—i.e., The Industrial Revolution— delimited by the years 1765 and 1930 (points D and E, Figure 1).

Phase 2, the Industrial Phase, comprises the shaded portion of Figure 1. The life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is defined as the duration in years (x) between the leading and lagging "37% points" (i.e., points E and H). It is a short, extravagant period when transportation, commerce and industry were powered predominantly by (nonrenewable) fossil-fuels. Historic data (presented later) quantifies the peak period of the curve: i.e., the years between points E and G. Using that data, I mark the beginning of the Industrial Phase at 1930 (point E), the year average energy-use per person reached 37% of its peak value.

Note that the peak of Industrial Civilization was reached in about 1977 (point F), less than fifty years after it began. More significant, Figure 1 identifies the global energy "watershed". For the first time in the gaping millennia of human existence, average per capita energy-use peaked and began to decline!

As I read it, the descent into the Olduvai valley will be steep and swift. A scenario of Phase 3, the Post-Industrial Phase, is sketched in Figure 1 (i.e., from point I onward) wherein Industrial Civilization has disintegrated into farming villages, kinship tribes and rogue bands. The surviving population will have "achieved" permanent sustainability—at the subsistence level.

Of course, other scenarios are possible. For example, "The human species may follow the road to extinction rather than revert to the berry-picking stage" (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Or more recently, "The danger of extinction is real ... It is time to face the facts" (Leslie, 1996). However, because the circumstances of human society beyond the end of the second phase (i.e., point H. Figure 1) don't effect my thesis, the third phase is de-emphasized in the remainder of this discussion.
I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love,
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.

TS Eliot

Overlord
Overlord

Posts: 327

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm

Post Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:51 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

Hey Roccman,

Trying to study this a bit and make sense of it.

Can you help me out on a detail on this?

I know these are not really your quotes, at least as far as the content, but I see you seem knowledgeable of the topic.

I guess maybe the starting premise is the one I am stuck on?

roccman wrote:
Energy-use per person is used as a measurable index of industrialization. In 1989, I proposed the Olduvai theory of Industrial Civilization, as illustrated in Figure 1.



Energy use per person.

I understand that it may be used as a measure (of all sorts of things), but is it valid as it being used?

Other prior or even present, but differing by areas, measures of success have used that may be be valid in their own realm and own regard, but then pass as progression occurs.

A classic example of olde-tyme success may be How Many Cows or Sheep does this man or tribe or community have. Used to be A Big Deal. Now we sort of smile and say, oh that is cute or primitive, or whatever. It is sort of dismissed as an invalid measure.

Same now with horses. Used to be a Huge Measure. Now they are pretty much just pets in most of the US.

Sometime ago, on the family scale of things, a large number of children may have been viewed as measure of success. Now, just a couple, raised and nurtured well seems the desire.

Why is not it so with Energy Consumption? Folks use can use less -- a lot less -- without any real degradation of quality of life.

Why use Energy Consumption as measure of anything, (other than maybe an efficiency equation?) -- let alone a predictive measure?

Thanks. You follow I am not trying to debate anything about this, just follow the concept that the entire model seems to be based on.



If the decline continues (and extinction is avoided), human societies will bottom out at the subsistence level of energy-use.


Ok, maybe so. But why is using anything at a subsistence level be considered a bad thing?

For example, Individually we can choose to use food at a subsistence rate -- or else we would be obese. Why would / should it be different with Energy Consumption and why would that be considered to be a demise sort of thing?

Or in land of Many Cows -- why would having enough cows to get by comfortably be a worse thing than having a massive herd, and mountains of cow poop?

I guess I do not follow how going from gluttony to sane, sustainable use would be a bad thing?
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." attributed to Henry Ford.
User avatar

VIP
VIP

Posts: 4300

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:23 am

Post Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:15 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

1) Because the Top 1% own 60%.

2) The Bottom 99% have to make do with the 40%.

3) And worse than that, resource control is skewed worse than that,
with the Bottom 2 Quintiles getting by with 2%.

Energy per capita is what would happen if all were equal.
And yes, human pop exploded as Oil was discovered/produced at 25:1 EROEI
(Energy Returned on energy invested).
And new oil was coming on line.

After JFK this stopped for the US. After 9/11 it stopped for the world.

Energy-use per person is used as a measurable index of industrialization. In 1989, I proposed the Olduvai theory of Industrial Civilization, as illustrated in Figure 1.


The Bottom 2.5 billion are already living your

Folks use can use less -- a lot less -- without any real degradation of quality of life.


No. They can't.

Overlord
Overlord

Posts: 327

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm

Post Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:44 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

mcgowanjm wrote:1) Because the Top 1% own 60%.


Understood and agreed. That is why the inflexibility on energy source selection. The top end and their political servants are fully tied to the status quo.

Great Wealth is at risk of collapsing from folks walking away from Oil and reducing Energy Use.


2) The Bottom 99% have to make do with the 40%.



Must admit I have no idea about the breakdown/split of the numbers, but no argument either way.

But back to the obesity model -- less is not always less bad or worse.

For example -- Less Oil being burnt is pretty much a good thing for everyone except those who sell Oil.

3) And worse than that, resource control is skewed worse than that,
with the Bottom 2 Quintiles getting by with 2%.


Agree. It is usually best to start with where the problem is.

Energy per capita is what would happen if all were equal.


Well, you understand that it was not even my concept or phrase.

It is part of what appears to be Olduvai, and what I was questioning, as well.

And yes, human pop exploded as Oil was discovered/produced at 25:1 EROEI
(Energy Returned on energy invested).
And new oil was coming on line.


Sort of separate branch, but those numbers have not turned out so functional, either. Turns out the valid measure is in money -- the starting concept of ROI -- as when it comes to energy, when done by energy content is not all equal.



Energy-use per person is used as a measurable index of industrialization. In 1989, I proposed the Olduvai theory of Industrial Civilization, as illustrated in Figure 1.


The Bottom 2.5 billion are already living your

Folks use can use less -- a lot less -- without any real degradation of quality of life.


No. They can't.


Since the bottom already consume relatively so little -- by your numbers, correct? That is not even a reasonable place to start, is it?
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." attributed to Henry Ford.
User avatar

VIP
VIP

Posts: 4300

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:23 am

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:03 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages


Sort of separate branch, but those numbers have not turned out so functional, either.Turns out the valid measure is in money -- the starting concept of ROI -- as when it comes to energy, when done by energy content is not all equal.


Turns out the valid measure is in money -- the starting concept of ROI


The Only measure is Energy. Money is Symbol.

I was going to ask, but instead am cutting to the chase. The Only thing that could equal
Energy is Matter and Information. And so the forumla remains:

EROEI.


Since the bottom already consume relatively so little -- by your numbers, correct? That is not even a reasonable place to start, is it?


The Bottom almost 3 billion cannot consume less. But they still consume a great deal.
And it will take more and more Energy Use to keep them in their place.
Again, More Energy is what the Top 1% don't have to give.
The Law of Complexity demands Simplicity.
While the Top 1% are desperate for more Complexity.
Non Linear Collapse at anytime.
User avatar

VIP
VIP

Posts: 4300

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:23 am

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:16 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

And Bad info dissemination doesn't help:

TRIPOLI | Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:54am EDT

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Libya's new government increased security in Tripoli Saturday with extra roadblocks and house-to-house searches after fighting in the capital with supporters of Muammar Gaddafi raised fears of another insurgency.

At most a few dozen pro-Gaddafi fighters appeared Friday in only a few neighborhoods of the Libyan capital that are known to be sympathetic to the deposed ruler.


The Giveaway to the above is

"At most a few dozen..." Like the reporter (and his editors spent more time getting the phrasing right than the number of resistance.... :twisted:

As the 1.6 MMBD(that would qualify as the World's Third Largest after Ghawar& Burgan) that was Libyan Light Sweet Still doesn't flow.
Even as I have yet to see a graph showing that reality.
User avatar

VIP
VIP

Posts: 4300

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:23 am

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:19 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

CNN:
Fareed's take:

Europe needs a crisis agenda and a growth agenda."


Insane. The crisis agenda for the Bottom 99%.
The Growth Agenda for the rest.

Not even mentioning that we have now left the Holocene
and entered the anthropocene:

Record Heat USA October 15, 2011.
User avatar

VIP
VIP

Posts: 4300

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:23 am

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:31 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

Europe right now at the highest levels is freaked out about
the Total Clusterfuck that Libya has become in the Last
4 days.

And like Stalingrad, someone soon, in the West is going to
have to deliver the bad news.

TRIPOLI | Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:54am EDT TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Libya's new government increased security in Tripoli Saturday with extra roadblocks and house-to-house searches after fighting in the capital with supporters of Muammar Gaddafi raised fears of another insurgency.


Another Insurgency? (Like Another Recession? :twisted: ) Why am I supposed to be afraid of another insurgency?
User avatar

Sovereign of Doom
Sovereign of Doom

Posts: 577

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:33 am

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:21 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

Some points raised here might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

such as the use of fossil fuels to increase the no. of calories consumed by around 25 pct, and then combined with mass manufacturing for health care (intermediate and advanced) and other factors, leading to higher life expectancy rates, etc.

In general, though, we might look at ecological footprint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Overlord
Overlord

Posts: 327

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm

Post Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:10 am

Re: The Road to Olduvai - Global Look at Energy Shortages

mcgowanjm wrote:

Sort of separate branch, but those numbers have not turned out so functional, either.Turns out the valid measure is in money -- the starting concept of ROI -- as when it comes to energy, when done by energy content is not all equal.


Turns out the valid measure is in money -- the starting concept of ROI


The Only measure is Energy. Money is Symbol.

I was going to ask, but instead am cutting to the chase. The Only thing that could equal
Energy is Matter and Information. And so the forumla remains:

EROEI.



It seems to remain . . . flawed.

At least for conversion practices.

The conversion of Energy is a large part of what I could not make the numbers clear on this when I first wandered in. I would see all these conversion claims regarding EROEI. So I started asking some wide ranging folks to show me the math. You know what I found -- No one. Ever. No body could do and show the math where the purported answers came from.

In the legit Science realm that is Very Rare. You cannot usually keep us nerds from displaying full sets of math, examples, foot notes and source documents, along with the serial numbers on the test equipment involved. :lol:

Not so in EROEI. Just a -- This is The Answer. And some hand-waves if pursued beyond.

So I started wondering what it was about. Turns out EROEI is a concept -- not an equation. You follow the difference? As far as a concept EROEI seems like it would be valid. By common sense measure it would seem no one would sink more energy down a hole than we would get back up.

That is the entire point, correct? Anything with an EROEI of less than 1 could not be done as an ongoing process or practice?

But as an inductive concept -- where observations had been made and seem reasonable -- that is only half the game. The next part is the deductive testing -- to see if the inductive reasoning of EROEI falls apart when compared to real world numbers.

Seems it does. Fall apart that is. I had ran across this on the Tar Sands projects in Alberta. I had been hired on as an Engineer by Krupp, they are doing some of the infrastructure Design and Build. My observations on the math there are they are throwing in "tons" energy in the form of Electricity (my realm) and Natural Gas, to get less out energy than they are putting in.

It appears to have a "less than 1" EROEI. By EROEI modeling that should mean it is No Go. But on it goes, and more and more.

What totally throws EROEI is that some forms of Energy are Not Equal. For example, some are relatively cheap -- at least right now -- such as Electricity and Natural Gas -- while some forms of Energy -- such as Oil are dear and expensive. That means it is Not an Energy Thing after all -- it is a Money Thing. Same as the old ROI modeling.

You follow in all that I am not saying -- it is a good thing, a desirable thing, or one that anyone should follow? Just talking about the validity of the EROEI math and modeling. It looks like EROEI as an operating model is fatally flawed as it does not bear out as functional in real world practice.

On the personal level -- When I looked at what was going regarding the environmental degradation regarding the Tar Sands, I said OMIGOD, and quit the Krupp project and have been working mostly renewables since.



The Bottom almost 3 billion cannot consume less. But they still consume a great deal.
And it will take more and more Energy Use to keep them in their place.
Again, More Energy is what the Top 1% don't have to give.
The Law of Complexity demands Simplicity.
While the Top 1% are desperate for more Complexity.
Non Linear Collapse at anytime.


We agree the bottom is not about consuming less, and again, not a likely place to make up a shortage.

And we agree that the "top 1%" are not a likely source of energy, let alone more energy, nor anything else. I tend to view the top as accumulators -- not producers of much of anything.

I sort of look at the top end as the fat cells of the human body en masse. If you feed the top more they get fatter and obese -- but still do not actually produce anything.

I follow the top end sort of wishes to think themselves the "brains," of the operation -- but if you look at that with any critical thought you do not see much "brainwork" coming from that direction.

Do you follow that my question regarding the Olduvai is solely about the validity of using Energy Consumption per Person. That is the premise the entire idea seems to be based on.

Energy Consumption may likely not be a measure of anything meaningful -- let alone success, demise or failure.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." attributed to Henry Ford.
Next

Return to Peak Oil Breaking News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.

phpBB SEO