I don't know if these are relevant points, I think they are. (AKA somebody
interpret, eh?)
In terms of sustainability, assuming inflation continues (which obviously it
won't, in terms of today's monetary standards) and pumping crude continues at
the rate of 1%? of the present rate, oil WILL someday cost over a trillion (or
whatever) dollars per gallon.

Also, ethanol is a renewable product in terms of CO2 as batteries are
renewable in terms of recycling. It's the same thing. To consider crude as
energy efficient is not a sustainable attitude.  Soon, sheets of PV material
WILL be rolled out like tin foil, and recycling CO2, etc., will be considered
in the global environmental picture. The two choices now, that I see, are
Ethanol and Hydrogen.

It's true that making ethanol doesn't make energy, it only makes it
transportable, like batteries.  PV reduces albedo, which is also converting
energy.  We can't make energy, we can only convert it. E=MC^2 applies to
chemical reactions as well as nuclear reactions.

Is this not true?

Sent to sci.chem for comment.  Please delete them if your response is not
relevant.

Steve Hemphill

http://www.rt66.com/~hemphill/nino.html  <<comments?

Not for use as energy.  Oil may be very valuable someday for
other reasons, but once it takes more energy to pump it out
of the ground than the amount of energy recovered, then it
won't be used for energy anymore.

By 2005, it is has been estimated that it will require more
energy to locate and mine domestic oil than the amount of
energy recovered.  Since oil is used directly or indirectly
in everything, decreasing oil energy profits will make
everything less "energy efficient" -- including other forms
of energy. But even if the energy profit ratio for domestic
coal only continues to fall at the same rate as it has, it
will thermodynamically unrecoverable by the year 2040 [p. 67,
Gever et al., 1991].

Global oil production is expected to "peak" around the year
2005.  Once it peaks, prices could quickly triple.
[ http://dieoff.org/page122.htm ]

As energy prices increase, we become less "energy efficient"
with respect to imported oil. That is, we will have to burn
more energy in order to make more goods and services (to make
more money) to buy a barrel of oil. It's a positive feedback
loop. But there's a thermodynamic limit on how much we can pay!

If as a country, we must spend two barrels of oil to produce
enough goods and services to buy one barrel of oil, it is
impossible for us to pay our overhead -- it is impossible for
us to continue. At that point, our economic machine is just
plain "out of gas".

Japan and Germany can afford to spend more for energy than
America because they are more "energy efficient".

Basically you are asking what the future holds.  No one knows
for certain, but here's my guess:

We presently mine our minerals from Earth's crust. The
most-concentrated and most-accessible resources are mined first,
thereafter more-and-more energy is required to mine and refine
poorer-and-poorer quality resources.  From 1972 to 1982 the
fraction of GDP allocated to natural resource extraction grew
from 4 percent to 10 percent.

When resource quality is defined in terms of energy investment,
the record shows clearly that quality is declining across almost
the entire spectrum of resources.  For example, in the early
1960s, about 38 billion BTUs of energy (in fuels, electricity,
and capital equipment) to refine a ton of copper.  By 1977, 62
billion BTUs were required to obtain the same ton of copper.  At
some point in the future, mining will have to stop because the
energy costs become too great.

During the next hundred years, the energy profit for fossil fuel
plants will become negative and they will pass into history
forever. It is fundamentally impossible to maintain a constant
level of net energy while the aggregate energy profit drops.  To
keep the production of non-energy goods and services at current
levels will require more net energy than we can now generate, and
to have more net energy in the future means that energy must be
diverted now from non-energy sectors of the economy into energy
generation.

Shortly after the year 2000, industrial pollution will rise
high enough to begin to seriously degrade land fertility
(contamination from heavy metals, persistent chemicals, climate
change, and increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a
diminished ozone layer).   Moreover, global oil production will
"peak" causing oil prices to triple!  Because of the dependence
of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, and the declining
fertility of the land, the economy is forced to divert much more
investment into the agriculture and energy sectors in an
desperate attempt to maintain agricultural output.

As resource quality continues to fall, society will be forced to
allocate more and more capital to the agriculture and resource
sectors otherwise the scarcity of food, materials, and fuels
would restrict production still more.  The industrial capital
plant will decline, taking with it the service and agricultural
sectors, which have become dependent upon industrial inputs. For
a short time the situation is especially serious, because the
population keeps rising, due to the lags inherent in the age
structure and in the process of social adjustment. Finally
population too begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven
upward by lack of food and health services. [p. 134, Meadows et
al., 1992]

In many ways, the next hundred years will be the inverse of the
last hundred.  As fossil fuel dwindles, and societies velop,
muscle will gradually replace machinery.  "Home grown" will
replace "imported".  Obviously, large cities -- especially where
temperatures drop to freezing -- will be largely abandoned.

We will see feral children mining the dumps for plastic to burn
(Pampers) so they can heat the holes they are forced to live
in. Roadside Warriors gone mad, killing, raping, and torturing.
Pandemics sweeping the world, punctuated every so often by
explosions as abandoned nuke plants go critical.  Leaking dumps,
tanks, chemical fires, blowing garbage and trash, genetic
mutations, filthy water, cannibalism ...

A couple hundred thousand years from now, as the new radiation-
hardened species of humans emerge from the caves, they will elect
a new leader. Evolutionary theory can tell us a lot about the
winner. He will be the best liar running on a platform to end
hunger by controlling nature.

How could it be otherwise?

Jay

In article <34CAE2FC.84462...@rt66.com>, Steve Hemphill <hemph...@rt66.com>
wrote:

news.hal-pc.org!korova.insync.net!europa.clark.net!206.229.87.25!news-peer.
sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!
news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!206.250.118.17!nntp.earthlink.net!usenet
<34c840ff.27645...@Newshost.comnet.co.nz> <6aaopd$9...@news.gstis.net>
<34c98b9b.112294...@Newshost.comnet.co.nz> <34CA1274.1E9B1...@rt66.com>
<6adc12$6r...@news.gstis.net> <34CA3808.5DF6F...@rt66.com>
<6ae70m$ah...@news.gstis.net>

Oil will never cost a "trillion dollars per gallon", unless other competing
energy sources cost the same thing (inflation would be very bad at this
point).  You will find (if you care to look into it) that various
competitive energy sources cost approximately the same amount.  If we are
not using a particular energy source, it is because it is either outlawed,
or non-competitive.

Need a very good example?  When diesel was not in demand, it sold for
approximately $0.35/gal while gasoline sold for approximately $0.65/gal.  
Detroit engineers and marketers got the brilliant idea of producing
diesel automobiles and trucks.  The resulting demand drove the price of
diesel up until the cost per mile was approximately equal between gasoline
and diesel powered vehicles (which should be expected).  Today, this means
that diesel sells for approximately 5-10% more per gallon than gasoline,
because diesel autos get correspondingly more miles per gallon than
gasoline autos.

How could it be otherwise?  Well, as the cost of oil increases, so will
the potential profits for those who can develop a viable alternative
energy source.  This will give large corporations a strong motive (i.e.,
greed) to throw large amounts of money, time and resources at alternate
energy research.  Sooner or later in that scenario, *someone* will
discover a process that works well enough to supply the energy we need
to keep our culture going at a cost that is enough cheaper than the
increasing oil costs so that fossil fuels are abandoned as too
expensive.  There may be social upheavals and changes in job
opportunities, but we have survived the industrial revolution and we
seem to be surviving the computer revolution (both of which have caused
such effects), so I suppose that we'll survive the alternate energy
revolution.  The long history of our planet suggests one thing- when the
cost of *anything* gets too high, people find alternatives.  So I think
your doom scenario is overly melodramatic and more than a little
unlikely.
--
Understanding is a three edged sword-
your side, my side, and the truth.

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 08:38:04 -1000, "Jay Hanson" <jhan...@aloha.net>
wrote:

And Santa Claus is black and wears a green hat...

Get real.

Ever heard of solarpower, windmills, tidewave-energy, fusion etc.?

Maybe someone will construct a solarpowerstation in Sahara to produce
Hydrogen. Then someone might build a ship to transport the hydrogen to
Europe and America... Mercedes and BMW are actually working on cars
that will run on hydrogen. Current max range on a full tank is 800 KM.

Steffen

---
Vi lever i en klunketid.
Remove anti-spam x in email when replying.

Of course you forgot the energy aspect: if it takes more energy
to mine something than the amount of energy recovered, then it
will never be used for energy -- no matter how high the money
price goes.

We presently mine our fossil fuels from the Earth's crust. The
most-concentrated and most-accessible fuel is mined first,
thereafter more-and-more energy is required to mine and refine
poorer-and-poorer quality fuels. By 2005, it is has been
estimated that it will require more energy to locate and mine
domestic oil than the amount of energy recovered.  Since oil is
used directly or indirectly in everything, decreasing oil energy
profits will make everything less "energy efficient" -- including
other forms of energy. But even if the energy profit ratio for
domestic coal only continues to fall at the same rate as it has,
it will thermodynamically unrecoverable by the year 2040 [p. 67,
Gever et al., 1991].

[ You GOT that! ... right Charlie? ]

But lets take a look the money price of oil for all those
 starry-eyed economists out there in cyber land:

=============================================================

                    BACK TO THE FUTURE
                   Jay Hanson, 12/27/97

How many times have we heard that alternate energy is just not
price competitive with fossil fuels yet?  Ever wonder why?

Recently, a group of oil experts have stated that global oil
production is going to "peak" in a couple of years. And yet a
couple days ago, OPEC (led by the Saudis) raised oil quotas.

What the story?

The Saudis raised quotas because they are our friends, and the
optimum oil price for the US economy is about $20 a barrel!

"This extensively researched study is fast-moving, exciting,
 and accurate." -- Forbes magazine about Schweizer's VICTORY.
_______
VICTORY
According to Peter Schweizer [1], the Saudis cooperate with the
US in exchange for intel on dissidents [p. 31], satellite pics,
AWACS [p. 51], Stinger missiles [p. 190], advanced fighters,
direct military protection, and were even "leaked" information
when Treasury Department planned to devalue the dollar so they
could shift investments into nondollar assets. [p. 233]

During the Cold War, the Saudis worked in the black with the
CIA to lower global oil prices and thereby deprive the USSR
of the much-needed hard currency it needed to operate.  Each
$1 drop in oil price cost the USSR about one billion dollars
in revenue.

A $5 drop in the price of a barrel of oil would increase the
U.S. GDP by about 1.4 percent. Poindexter: "It was in our
interest to drive the price of oil as low as we could". [p. 218]

Weinberger: "One of the reasons we were selling all those arms
to the Saudis was for lower oil prices." [p. 203]

Alan Fiers: The Saudis were also providing financial aid to
the mujahedin and the contras. [p. 202]

"In the first few weeks of the Saudi push, daily production
jumped from less than 2 million barrels to almost 6 million.
By late fall of 1985, crude production would climb to almost
9 million barrels a day." [p. 242]

"Shortly after Saudi oil production rose, the international
price of oil sank like a stone in a pond.  In November 1985,
crude oil sold at $30 a barrel; barely five months later it
stood at $12." [p. 243]

"In the spring of 1986, the downward plunge in international
oil prices was causing serious worries around the world but
also among some quarters in the Reagan administration.  Vice
President George Bush was preparing for a highly visible
ten-day tour of the Persian Gulf area.  A product of the
Texas oil country, Bush saw danger, not hope, in the dramatic
and recent decline in oil prices." [p. 259]

Bush was acting on his own against the Reagan administration!
While Reagan, Casey and Weinberger were trying to talk oil
prices lower, Bush was meeting with Yamani and Fahd trying to
talk oil prices higher! [p. 260]

In 1983, the Treasury Department had done a secret study that
found the optimum oil price for the US economy was about $20
a barrel. [p. 141]

That why we have oil prices close to $20 a barrel!
_________________
CONSPIRACY THEORY
Campbell [2] doesn't know whether to believe the Gulf War
conspiracy theory or not, but it goes something like this:

After the Cold War was over, low oil prices made it difficult
for the Saudis -- and oilman President George Bush's friends --
to make ends meet because OPEC members were cheating on quotas.

The obvious solution to OPEC cheating was to sequester an entire
country: Iraq.  In order for our scheme to work, Saddam would
have to remain in power and the UN would have to embargo his oil.
That's exactly what we did.

We only to need keep Saddam in power for a few years -- till the
rest of the world's oil production "peaks".
________________
PETROCONSULTANTS
Petroconsultants is the world's leading provider of data and
analysis for petroleum exploration and production.  With
headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, Petroconsultants maintains
offices in London, Houston, Sydney and Singapore, supported by
over 250 dedicated multilingual and multinational employees and
a worldwide network of correspondents and associates. [
http://www.petroconsultants.com/ ]

"A new report on world oil resources, World Oil Supply 1930-2050
(Campbell and Laherre, Petroconsultants Pty. Ltd., 1995),
concludes that the planet's oil supplies will be exhausted much
sooner than previously thought.

"The report, written for oil industry insiders and priced at
$32,000 per copy, concludes that world oil production and supply
probably will peak as soon as the year 2000 and will decline to
half the peak level by 2025. Large and permanent increases in oil
prices are predicted after the year 2000." [EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL,
Spring 1997, THE DEATH OF THE OIL ECONOMY, by Ted Trainer
http://dieoff.org/page116.htm ]
___________
SPECULATION
Once global oil peaks, and we NEED to start pumping Saddam's oil,
I expect Americans to invade and OCCUPY Iraq. Moreover, profits
will flow to friends of George Bush -- not some wild-eyed, gun-
waving crackpot like Saddam.

World oil consumption rose by 2.4 percent in 1996 to 69.55
million barrels a day (BP America, June 19, 1997).  Thus, we seem
to be on the Petroconsultants' high scenario, with OPEC output
hitting an 18-year high of 27.39 mbpd in August of 1997 (Reuters,
Sept. 7, 1997).  It seems reasonable to assume that global
production will soon be unable to keep up with surging worldwide
demand, and that global oil production must peak by the year
2005.

Obviously, once oil production peaks in a couple of years, the
public will throw their total support behind an invasion of Iraq.
__________________
BACK TO THE FUTURE
                          TIME
                     January 14, 1974
   It looked like a hand grenade, so the Albany, N.Y., station
operator played it safe and assumed that it was a hand grenade.
He gave the man who was toting it all the gas he wanted.
Attendants  elsewhere last week faced curses and threats of
violence, sometimes  backed by suspicious bulges in the pockets
of jackets. When a huge  bear of a man warned a Springfield,
Mass., dealer, "You are going to  give me gas or I will kill
you," the dealer squeezed his parched pumps to find some.
"Better a live coward than a dead hero," he said.

   Such incidents were not exactly common last week, but they
occurred often enough, especially in the Northeast, to indicate
an  outbreak of a kind of gasoline madness. The New Year's
weekend was the  first time that many drivers became really
desperate for gas. Many  stations ran out of their monthly
allotments as the weekend started  and closed until they could
get new deliveries after the holiday.  Those that stayed open
backed up long lines of drivers whose tempers sometimes
exploded -- especially if they found the pumps dry when they
finally got to them.

   The gas shortage is sparking other types of deviant behavior.
Flouting of the law is on the rise. In New York City, two
gasoline  tanks trucks, each loaded with 3,000 gallons, were
hijacked within a week. Price gouging by station owners has
become distressingly common.  Miamians complain of having to pay
$1 a gallon or being charged a $2 "service fee" before a station
attendant will wait on them.

   At best, many gas station owners and attendants have become
unapproachable to strangers; they will wait only on longtime
customers. Some issue window stickers to the regulars; others
sell by appointment only. Oregon Governor Tom McCall last week
rolled into a  Union 76 station only to be told by the manager:
"Sorry, Governor, we're only selling to our regular customers."
So the Governor meekly drove to the end of the line at a nearby
station that was taking all comers.

Jay -- http://dieoff.org/page1.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For a fascinating account of how American government operates
in the black, read VICTORY: The Reagan Administration's Secret
  Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union,
   by Peter Schweizer; Grove/Atlantic, 1996; ISBN 0871136333
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0871136333/7316-8640065-053141

Schweizer book is endorsed New York Times, the Washington Times,
and Forbes.  Schweizer was sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

[2] Campbell's is the best book BY FAR on oil depletion, read
THE COMING OIL CRISIS, by C. J. Campbell;
  Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants, 1997
   ISBN 0906522110
    See a review and order it now from Amazon books:
...

read more »

Jay Hanson includes

     By 2005, it is has been estimated that it will require more
     energy to locate and mine domestic oil than the amount of
     energy recovered.

American Petroleum Institute estimates otherwise.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Jay Hanson includes:

     You are confusing your "beliefs" with science. There is NO
     credible science to suggest ANYTHING can replace fossil
     fuels. Unfortunately, you can't feed your family "beliefs".

Hydrogen produced by splitting water with nuclear energy is one
solution.  There are others.  Even solar electricity will work,
albeit at higher, though bearable, cost.  In the long run,
nuclear energy will have to come from breeder reactors, and that
will do for five billion years as Bernard Cohen has shown.

In the short run, breeder reactors are not required, because
there is a glut of uranium, and breeder reactors are somewhat
more expensive.

[If Hanson simply reposts his old quotation about nuclear energy
being limited, I will not reply again to that, having done so
enough times already.]

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

[snip]

[snip]

Read "Limits to Growth."  It was a perfect 1960's extrapolation of
future trends - perfectly, utterly, incredibly, monumentally WRONG.

Oil & Gas Journal 94(53) 37 (1996) (end of year summary).  Crude oil
reserves were up  11.4 billion bbl; natural gas was up 11.6 trillion
ft^3.  Recoverable reserves (not extrapolated) were pegged at 1.02
trillion bbl oil and 4.95 quadrillion ft^3 of natural gas.  At current
rates of use plus zero new discoveries, that is at least a century of
running.

Throw in massive unacknowledged Alaskan and Antarctic reserves, Colorado
oil shale, Athabasca tar sands, secondary and ternary recovery, massive
Santa Barabara (fragile and endangered environment) reserves, US
military reserves... and you get another year or two, eh?  Oh yeah,
methane hydrate deposits off the contintental shelves of all cntinents
are estimated at 30% of all the hydrocarbon reserves on Earth - and we
haven't tapped more than a few pounds.

And if things REALLY GET TIGHT, we'll use coal.  There are a few million
tonnes in Utah that were just declared a National Park.  Alaska has
mountains of the stuff, entire caribou reservs the size of Montana of
the stuff.  The Antarctic is lined with coal, as is China.  Remember
Siberia?  It is floating on gas, oil, and coal.  And Alaska:  Each day
the wells are repressurized with enough methane to meet several US
cities entire energy use.  The entire Arabian peninsula glows at night
with tens of thousands of methane flares.  Imagine the ecological
potential of trapping methane from cow farts.

You couldn't run through hydrocarbon reserves if you tried.  You could
lie about them, but then you would be called an Environmentalist.  Where
is the Carbon Tax on Everything when you need it?

--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncle...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <x4hn2gjqbmv....@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
   John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

news.hal-pc.org!nntp.texas.net!131.103.1.114.MISMATCH!news1.chicago.iagnet.
net!qual.net!iagnet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.
com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
<34c840ff.27645...@Newshost.comnet.co.nz> <6aaopd$9...@news.gstis.net>
<34c98b9b.112294...@Newshost.comnet.co.nz> <34CA1274.1E9B1...@rt66.com>
<6adc12$6r...@news.gstis.net> <34CA3808.5DF6F...@rt66.com>
<6ae70m$ah...@news.gstis.net> <34CAE2FC.84462...@rt66.com>
<6ah0sc$30...@news.hal-pc.org> <6aiiuk$g2...@news.gstis.net>

It sounds like it's time for another "Simonian" bet.  How does Jay wish to
define "domestic", how does he want to define "mining" domestic oil, and
how much is he willing to bet on something that is in the very near future?

Shh!  Jay's made up his mind.  Don't confuse him with facts! ;-)
--
Understanding is a three edged sword-
your side, my side, and the truth.

: Jay Hanson includes:
: Hydrogen produced by splitting water with nuclear energy is one
: solution.  There are others.  Even solar electricity will work,
: albeit at higher, though bearable, cost.  In the long run,
: nuclear energy will have to come from breeder reactors, and that
: will do for five billion years as Bernard Cohen has shown.

  As we have seen, McCarthy's "nuclear paradise" would require the
construction of approximately 200,000 new nuclear reactors at a cost of
$800 trillion.  A cost that need be repeatedly spent every 50 years or
so as the reactors are retired.

  It is not at all clear to me that solar would be more expensive than
nuclear for initial installation.

  What is clear to me is that solar panels have no moving parts and once
installed, will essentially last forever.

  Sometimes it is forgotten that solar energy production is not simply
the production of energy via solar panels.  Direct solar heating of
buildings for example can easily offset a large amount of conventional
heating, the direct creation of fuels from solar collectors will also be
part of the future energy mix.

  The future is very bright for solar.  Not so bright for nuclear.

--
<---->

1. How could Nudds know that solar panels will last forever?
Semiconductors often have short lives.  Does anyone know how long
photovoltaic cells are known to last?

2. The "nuclear paradise" of which Nudds writes assumes 15 billion
people all with present American per capita energy consumption with
all their energy nuclear.  That many people with that standard of
living could afford the reactors.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

There has never been a study to suggest ANYTHING can replace
fossil fuel.

[If McCarthy simply reposts his old quotation about nuclear energy

 being viable, I will not reply again to that, having done so
 enough times already. <G> ]

Jay

Here's an example about studies suggesting a replacement for fossil
fuels:
A campfire.

Say this word:  exothermic.  Now go look it up.

Also, 100,000 years ago I think a man had more trouble walking by
another man without getting his head bashed in, unless the basher saw
him early enough to hide and wanted to follow him back to his cave (or
whatever) to check out his woman before he bashed his head in.

Unlike you, Jay, I think we're making progress.

Steve Hemphill
The information revolution is coming.

Comeon Uncle Al, I have a copy.  Please quote and cite page number
where they were wrong.  What???  You don't have a copy????

Are you just making this stuff up?

You aught to do some homework Uncle Al, you aren't well informed
on these energy issues.

If it take more energy to mine fuel than the amount of energy
recovered, it will never happin.  It doesn't make any difference
how many molecules there are.

Here is a snip GeoDestinies, by Walter Youngquist PhD & Chair
Emeritus, Department of Geology, University of Oregon;
National Book Company, 1997; ISBN 0894202995
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ats-query/4520-3664168-414119

-------------------
Myth: Canada's oilsands with 1.7 trillion barrels of oil will be
      a major world oil supply

It appears to be true that in the Athabasca oilsands and nearby
related heavy oil and bitumen deposits of northern Alberta there
is more oil than in all of the Persian Gulf deposits put
together.

Reality:

The impressive figure of 1.7 trillion barrels of oil is
deceiving. It is likely that only a relatively small amount of
that total can be economically recovered. The oil is true crude
oil but it cannot be recovered by conventional well drilling.
Almost all of it is now recovered by strip mining. The overburden
is removed and the oilsand is dug up and hauled to a processing
plant. There the oil is removed by a water floatation process.
The waste sand has to be disposed of.

Much of the oilsand is too deep to be reached by strip mining.
Other methods are being tried to recover this deeper oil, but the
economics are marginal. With the strip mining and refining
process now in use, it takes the energy equivalent of two barrels
of oil to produce one barrel. To expand the strip mining
operation to the extent which could, for example, produce the 18
million barrels of oft used each day in the United States would
involve the world's biggest mining operation, on a scale which is
simply not possible in the foreseeable future, if ever. Canada
will probably gradually increase the oil production from these
deposits, but until the conventional oil of the world is largely
depleted these Canadian deposits are likely to represent only a
very small fraction of world production. The production will
always be insignificant relative to potential demand. Oilsands
are now and will be important to Canada as a long-term source of
energy and income. But they will not be a source of oil as are
the world's oil wells today.

[ http://dieoff.org/page132.htm ]

-------------------

Youngquist's book would be a good place to begin your education.

Since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything,
decreasing energy profits will make everything less
"energy efficient" -- including other forms of energy.
What's more, increasing oil prices also increase the
dollar cost everything -- including other forms of energy.
But even if the profit ratio for domestic coal continues
to fall at the same rate as it has, it will thermodynamically
"unrecoverable" by 2040. [p. 67, Gever et al., 1991]

Try again Al.
Jay

Limits to Growth was based on a computer model which was the crowning example
of scientific hubris.  Nothing less than the economy of the entire earth was
considered predictable on the basis of existing data.  Unfortunately, no model
can account for things it doesn't know, like unknown reserves of a mineral,
the rise of computers, the drop in birth rate in unexpected places for unknown
reasons, the fall of the Soviet Union.

I no longer have my copy, but I think we were supposed to run out of mercury
first (making everyone's uninvented digital watches come to a halt).  Oil
reserves have increased several-fold since then, and no computer by itself
seemed to be able to find them.

Since, people have tried to model natural ecosystems, the weather, and smaller
economic systems, with equally lousy results.

Bill

************************************************************
If you work with gases or gas instruments, call or email for
information on the Model 1010 Precision Diluter/Calibrator.
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
   526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
   630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpenr...@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************

I hate to suggest that you guys might try reading
something BEFORE you criticize it.  The ONLY
"predictions" made by LIMITS TO GROWTH are for
the year 2072.

For those of you who have never read LIMITS TO
GROWTH, here is a synopsis:

=============================================================

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.

THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL

One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study
published in 1972 under the title The Limits to Growth. Based
on a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by
Professor Jay Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model
was constructed to simulate likely future outcomes of the
world economy. The most prominent feature of systems dynamics
is the use of feedback loops to explain behavior. The feedback
loop is a closed path that connects an action to its effect on
the surrounding conditions which, in turn, can influence
furtheraction. As the examples presented subsequently in this
chapter demonstrate, depending on how the relationships are
described, a wide variety of complex behavior can be described
by thistechnique.

Conclusions of Pessimist Model

Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first
suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with
no major change in the physical, economic, or social
relationships that have traditionally governed world
development, society will run out of the nonrenewable
resources on which the industrial base depends. When the
resources have been depleted, a precipitous collapse of the
economic system will result, manifested in massive
unemployment, decreased food production, and a decline in
population as the death rate soars. There is no smooth
transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather, the
economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the
depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic
behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse (see Figure
1.1).

The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal
approaches to solving the individual problems will not be
successful. To demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily
double their estimates of the resource base and allow the
model to trace out an alternative vision based on this new
higher level of resources. In this alternative vision the
collapse still occurs, but this time it is caused by excessive
pollution generated by the increased pace of industrialization
permitted by the greater availability of resources. The
authors then suggest that if the depletable resource and
pollution problems were somehow jointly solved, population
would grow unabated and the availability of food would become
the binding constraint. In this model the removal of one limit
merely causes the system to bump subsequently into another
one, usually with more dire consequences.

As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that
overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate
limit on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of
economic growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible
outcomes: the termination of growth by self-restraint and
conscious policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the
termination of growth by a collision with the natural limits,
resulting in societal collapse. Thus, according to this study,
one way or the other, growth will cease. The only issue is
whether the conditions under which it will cease will be
congenial or hostile.

The Nature of the Model

Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the
structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics
that yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of
those characteristics.

The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable
(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases
in that variable will be greater and greater each year.
Furthermore, the higher the rate of growth in resource
consumption, the faster a fixed stock of it will be exhausted.
Suppose, for example, current reserves of a resource are 100
times current use and the supply of reserves cannot be
expanded. If consumption were not growing, this stock would
last 100 years. However, if consumption were to grow at 2%
per year, the reserves would be exhausted in 55 years; and at
10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.

Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed
relative to the supply of land. The combination of exponential
growth in demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply,
necessarily implies that, at some point, resource supplies
must be exhausted. The extent to which those resources are
essential thus creates the conditions for collapse.

This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced
and in some ways tempered by the presence of numerous positive
and negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are those
in which secondary effects tend to reinforce the basic trend.
An example of a positive feedback loop is the process of
capital accumulation. New investment generates greater
output, which, when sold, generates profits. These profits can
be used to fund additional new investments. This example
suggests a manner in which the growth process is
self-reinforcing.

Positive feedback loops may also be involved in global
warming. Scientists believe, for example, that the
relationship between emissions of methane and global warming
may be described as a positive feedback loop. Since methane is
a greenhouse gas, increases in methane emissions contribute
to global warming. As the planetary temperature rises,
however, it could release extremely large quantities of
additional methane, and so on.

Human responses can intensify environmental problems. When
shortages of a commodity are imminent, for example, consumers
typically begin to hoard the commodity. Hoarding intensifies
the shortage. Similarly, people faced with shortages of food
commonly eat the seed that is the key to more plentiful food
in the future. Situations giving rise to this kind of downward
spiral are particularly troublesome.

A negative feedback loop is self-limiting rather than
self-reinforcing, as illustrated by the role of death rates in
limiting population growth in the model. As growth occurs, it
causes larger increases in industrial output, which, in turn,
cause more pollution. The increase in pollution triggers a
rise in death rates, retarding population growth. From this
example it can be seen that negative feedback loops can
provide a tempering influence on the growth process, though
not necessarily a desirable one.

Perhaps the best-known planetary-scale example of a negative
feedback is provided in a theory advanced by James Lovelock,
an English scientist. Called the Gaia hypothesis after the
Greek concept for Mother Earth, this view of the world
suggests that the earth is a living organism with a complex
feedback system that seeks an optimal physical and chemical
environment.

Deviations from this optimal environment trigger natural,
nonhuman response mechanisms which restore the balance. In
essence, according to the Gaia hypothesis the planetary
environment is a self-regulating process.

The model of the world envisioned by the Gaia hypothesis is
incompatible with that envisioned by the Limits to Growth
team. Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops,
coupled with fixed limits on essential resources, the
structure of the Limits to Growth model preordains its
conclusion that human activity is on a collision course with
nature. While the values assumed for various parameters (the
size of the stock of depletable resources, for example) affect
the timing of the various effects, they do not substantially
affect the nature of the outcome.

The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is
helpful in a more general sense than the specific
relationships embodied in this model. As we proceed with our
investigation, the degree to which our economic and political
institutions serve to intensify or to limit emerging
environmental problems will be a key concern. [p.p. 4-9]

[I believe this is the standard university text for this
discipline. JH]

wpenr...@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:

I still have my copy of _Limits to Growth_.  It was even worse than Penrose
says.  All consumer goods were lumped together, so it was impossible
to interpret its predictions in a concrete way.  My favorite
comparison is that if someone had applied its methodology to American
beef production between 1850 and 1860, it would have predicted that by
1930 each American would eat a cow a day.  The linear equations did
not permit allow representing saturation effects.

The best demolition job on LTG was done by a group at the University
of Sussex in England a few years after the book was published.  The
Club of Rome that paid for the Meadows work and trumpeted mightily
when it was published has long since abandoned the group and the
methodology.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Try that in your Ford for your morning commute.
Let me know how it works.

What's the goal?

Jay

What John is saying is that the predictions weren't
even wrong -- they were meaningless.

*My* favorite demolition was someone who observed
that the equations were deterministic, and so could
be run backwards as well as forwards.  The model's
postdictions are highly amusing (for example, the
population of the earth is infinite sometime in the
1800s.)

        Paul

: Jay Hanson includes:
: Hydrogen produced by splitting water with nuclear energy is one
: solution.  There are others.  Even solar electricity will work,
: albeit at higher, though bearable, cost.  In the long run,
: nuclear energy will have to come from breeder reactors, and that
: will do for five billion years as Bernard Cohen has shown.

  As we have seen, McCarthy's "nuclear paradise" would require the
construction of approximately 200,000 new nuclear reactors at a cost of
$800 trillion.  A cost that need be repeatedly spent every 50 years or
so as the reactors are retired.

  It is not at all clear to me that solar would be more expensive than
nuclear for initial installation.

  What is clear to me is that solar panels have no moving parts and once
installed, will essentially last forever.

  Sometimes it is forgotten that solar energy production is not simply
the production of energy via solar panels.  Direct solar heating of
buildings for example can easily offset a large amount of conventional
heating, the direct creation of fuels from solar collectors will also be
part of the future energy mix.

  The future is very bright for solar.  Not so bright for nuclear.

--
<---->