Leveling the Playing Field

[Heidi and Dan Chay]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments in reply to my previous post in this
thread related to oil and the Caspian Sea.

It might seem that in continuing to write about energy, we are diverging far
from the purposes of a list devoted to OST. It raises a meta-issue:  in open
space on open space how far can we go from the opening theme before things
unravel?  I guess, I, too, have confidence in the Law of One Delete. <grin>
I am sensitive to hope not to annoy you, however.

Questions pertaining to energy are related, I think, because as far as I can
see, holding space takes free energy.  That is, it takes energy available to
us beyond that energy we require simply to maintain our current level of
organization.  In a physical sense this is not difficult to begin to
quantify.  In a spiritual sense, this is more difficult, but consider at
least figuratively, the energy that anger and fear cost us compared to the
energy we derive from authentic learning (contrast rote learning), curiosity
and hope.  In addition, an ostensibly dismal scenario suggests the
possibility of conditions where OST might be difficult to implement, but
hugely important.

I had shared the following excerpt from Kenneth Deffeyes, "Hubbert's Peak,"
which came out a couple months ago:

>>
This much is certain:  no initiative put in place starting today can have a
substantial effect on the peak production year.  No Caspian Sea exploration,
no drilling in the South China Sea, no SUV replacements, no renewable energy
projects can be brought on at a sufficient rate to avoid a bidding war for
the remaining oil.  At least, let's hope that the war is waged with cash
instead of with nuclear weapons. [Deffeyes, pg. 149]
<<

In part, you responded:

<<
Second, I'm always wary of absolutist statements about oil in the world such
as the one copied above. <<
<<

Paul, I assume we share profound skepticism about absolutist world views.
Skepticism is best distinguished from cynicism, of course.  Skepticism opens
space for learning, I think, in a healthy way.  Cynicism closes space.  I'm
delighted that you are wary of the Deffeyes quote I shared in my post -- and
also that you read it.  If you check out the book, you will see that it is a
thoughtful conclusion not derived from any kind of absolutist world view.

As far as I can see, as a group, economists are the most vocal group around
in disputing perspectives such as Deffeyes' which originate from a physics
and geophysical understanding.  The dialogue, rather more often debate, is
well worth searching out and reading.

Here is an excerpt from Scientific American about Deffeyes' book:

>>
It's tempting to dismiss Deffeyes as just another of the doomsayers who have
been predicting, almost since oil was discovered, that we are running out of
it. But Deffeyes makes a persuasive case that this time it's for real. This
is an oilman and geologist's assessment of the future, grounded in cold
mathematics.  http://www.sciam.com/2001/1001issue/1001reviews1.html
<<

As wrote Edna St. Vincent Millay:

Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Rains from sky a meteoric shower
Of facts...they live unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leach us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric.

If, or as, global society moves increasingly toward disequilibrium, I assume
that disinformation, incomplete information, misinformation, and
misinterpretations will proliferate.  I think we will increase our
collective and individual resilience by active learning, questioning our
assumptions, and engaging widely and skeptically.  Rather than simply
looking for material that buttresses what I already find most compelling, I
actively search material that questions what I currently believe.

You also wrote:
>>
There have been numerous predictions of oil disaster for decades now and new
"stuff" keeps being discovered or invented.  I suspect we will do so again.
Some of the work converting power from sunlight is beginning to hold real
promise and that is certainly a universal energy (except here in the NW of
the USA, lol)
<<

I wonder about what new "stuff" you might be referring?  They are claims
like this ("new stuff keeps being discovered or invented"), I think, which
are very common in the mainstream press and thinking, about which I think
also we must be skeptical.

It is interesting about energy about how much of it is around.  For example,
sand dunes are a HUGE store of energy.  The first law of thermodynamics
states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Energy does,
however, exist in different forms of varying quality.  Unfortunately, the
energy contained in sand dunes is of poor quality for our purposes.

Petroleum is a relatively high quality source of energy.  It gives us a high
energy return on energy invested (EROEI).  It is easily converted to
different forms.  Oil, unlike coal, natural gas, and hydrogen (deriving
hydrogen, used in fuel cells, gives a negative EROEI) also is easily
transported.  It converts energy on demand, day or night, in any kind of
weather.  It is easily stored, requiring neither batteries, nor low
temperatures, nor difficult-to-construct containers.  Its waste is
distributed and not so obviously toxic as nuclear.  We also have established
already a huge, complex infrastructure in transportation, agriculture,
petrochemical production that relies on it.

By depending on oil in the US we are able to produce such massive quantities
of food staples for ourselves and the world using as we do, relying on the
involvement of only 2% of our population (Youngquest, Geodestinies, 1996,
p.21).  Petroleum is a feedstock for fertilizer and pesticides.  Oil fuels
mechanical devices like tractors, harvesters, and threshers -- and our
transportation system.  Oil provides basis for a huge petrochemical complex.

Oil from the huge mideast oilfields reputedly gives an energy return on
energy invested upwards of 26:1.  Still, energy return on energy invested
(EROEI) goes down when fields are depleted, when new technologies like gas
injection are required to extract remaining oil, and when fields are of poor
quality and/or difficult to access.

Oil production in the US peaked in 1970. As it turns out, before that,
Hubbert used his combined deep knowledge in petroleum and mathematics to
predict it.  Although highly respected in his day, on this issue he also was
thoroughly rejected and discounted by establishment before reality proved
him accurate.  His techniques significantly have been refined since then.

Oil was discovered commercially in Pennsylvania in 1859 by a fellow named
Drake who drilled a well 66.5 ft deep.  In 1920 the US produced 80% of the
entire world's oil. In 1970 US oil production peaked.  In 1994 the US
started importing more oil than it produced.  The US was completely
self-sufficient in petroleum for more than 100 years.  Now, the US imports
nearly 60% of its oil.  Although the US uses about 28% of the world's oil,
it now holds only about 4% (!) of the estimated proved oil reserves.  Oil
imports are the single largest item in our annual balance of trade
deficit.(Youngquest, p. 111).

About 66% of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East; and
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates own most of that.
Numerous highly qualified petroleum geologists are claiming that global oil
production will peak between now and 2009 (many of them are saying likely
before 2005); thereafter to decline.  One global petroleum decline figure I
have read suggests more than 3% per year. http://www.hubbertpeak.com   By
way of comparison, North Slope petroleum production has been declining for
years now at a significantly higher rate than that.  In addition, compared
to oil, the decline curves for natural gas production are "like a cliff."

I have read studies about photovoltaics that show negative energy return on
energy invested (EROEI). The most promising net energy study I have read
suggests a return of 1.2 or 1.3:1 for solar voltaics.  Photovoltaics produce
energy that is not easily stored, nor easily transported.  It does not
produce energy at night.  Nor, as you suggest, do we all live in the sunbelt
where insolation allows this technology to perform optimally.  Scaling up an
infrastructure that even would begin to replace oil would require a huge
investment.

In my own research, I also am finding that fuel cells, hydrogen, biomass,
ethanol, methane hydrates, oil shales, and other so-called substitutes are
not what their purveyors claim them to be.

Given our petroleum dependencies, these are fascinating topics, I think;
well worth engaging in a highly skeptical manner.

All best wishes,

Dan

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html