James Stafford of Oilprice.com interviews energy specialist Dr. Tom Murphy, an associate professor of physics at the University of California, who runs the popular energy blog Do the Math which takes an astrophysicist's-eye view of societal issues relating to energy production, climate change, and economic growth.
Tom Murphy had previously indicated that no renewable energy source can replace fossil fuels on its own. However solar power is still cheap at 2-3 times the cost of fossil fuel energy, abundance is unquestionable, and manufacturing is not inordinately caustic. Murphy himself has panels on his roof which feed batteries. Wind and next-generation nuclear also deserve mention as potential large-scale sources. Yet none of these help directly with the liquid fuels shortage.
While Bill Gates has stated that innovation in energy can take 50-60 years to take effect, Murphy applauds any effort that takes our energy challenge seriously, and generates ideas. If nothing else, it raises awareness about our predicament. But there is the problem with the tendency in our technofix culture to think we have "loads of viable solutions in the hopper. Many of the ideas are just batty."
Murphy is particularly interested in the promising development of an artificial photosynthesis technology which would provide a liquid fuel that can support personal and commercial transportation on land, sea, and air with minimal changes to infrastructure. But these may rely on the appropriate catalysts which just might not be found.
Climate change: Murphy thinks that resource depletion trumps climate change, because he thinks that resource depletion has the potential to effect far more people on a far shorter timescale with far greater certainty. Since our economic model is based on growth, we are on a collision course with nature. When that growth cannot continue, the ramifications can be sudden and severe. "So my focus is more on averting the chaos of economic/resource/agriculture/distribution collapse, which stands to wipe out much of what we have accomplished in the fossil fuel age," he said. "To the extent that climate change and resource limits are both served by a deliberate and aggressive transition away from fossil fuels, I see a natural alliance."
Shale gas: Murphy says that the sentiment that "our problems are solved" is based on a very short history of tapping low-hanging shale-gas fruit. While shale gas will contribute to our net energy demands in an unanticipated way, anticipating large amounts is risky; natural gas is not a direct answer to a liquid fuels shortage; the associated exuberance can stifle the imperative that we have an all-hands-on-deck response to the looming challenges.
Biofuels: Murphy says that the scale of our fossil fuel use prohibits replacement by biofuels at a substantial level. The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is low. Harvests have to depend on increasingly erratic weather. Algae is the most promising because it can be grown and moved about as a liquid medium in sealed tubes, but algae has problems with bio-sludge, the algae contracting disease, and the fact that we have not yet found/created a viable hydrocarbon-excreting algae.
Nuclear: Murphy does not see Fukushima as a reason to abandon nuclear. While it has its problems, it is one of the few things we know how to do that can scale. Conventional nuclear faces limited resources, but thorium is promising. However, nuclear development will take time, which is not much help in a near-term crisis. Also, nuclear is yet another technique to create electricity. We need liquid fuels.
Keystone XL Pipeline: Murphy says that Canada produces about 5% of U.S. demand. Even if this were increased by current ambitious plans, it would only amount to half of our current oil imports. But "how much oil will Canada sell to the U.S.? How much will China pay for it? How much will Canada decide to keep for themselves? It's not a crystal clear win."
Technology will fix it: Murphy says "I worry about the strength and pervasiveness of faith in science and technology to fix our problems." ... We should acknowledge that once our inheritance is spent, we may not live like the kings we want to be." "Most physicists I meet in departments around the country are not aware of peak oil and associated challenges. Hardly anyone I meet is working on the problem. No one (i.e., funding) has told us this is a real problem that deserves our full attention." ... "Most ideas on the table provide electricity, which does not address our most critical need." ... "But let's also prepare a plan B that may be less about techno-fixes and more about behaviors and attitudes."
Batteries: Murphy says "Making large-scale storage more practical resolves the single-biggest technical barrier to widespread solar and wind deployment." He is sceptical about giant grids and more attracted to resilient local solutions. "On a moderately ambitious scale, a continental grid will reduce the need for storage, but it will not eliminate it. We still benefit from super-sized batteries."
Improving efficiency: "Efforts to improve efficiencies of the big stuff like power plants have been continuous. And we have seen improvements at the level of 1% per year." .. " I think incremental efficiency improvement does not have nearly enough bite to 'solve' our problem." ... "I have found behavioural modification to be far more effective, achieving factors of 2, 3, 5, etc. in short order without grossly changing lifestyles."
Space-based solar plants: "Why make solar power even more expensive with exorbitant launch costs (which only increases as energy costs increase), placing the equipment in an unserviceable, hostile space environment (cosmic rays, debris) while only gaining a factor of five in night/weather avoidance?"
Smart grids: "I'd sooner have smart people than a smart grid, deciding that it's in our collective interest to scale back energy use at a personal level." "They may be irked that they lose control over when the laundry decides to start - possibly resulting in clothes smelling of mildew, or that they are not present to fold clothes at 2 AM when the dryer is finished. Loss of control may not play well."
Cold Fusion: "This appears to be outside the domain of known physics."
Rock phospate fertilizer and resulting food shortages: Murphy says: "How about this solution: one billion people on Earth would obviate many of our problems. Any takers? Any acceptable path to this state? The original question does remind us that our problems are numerous. It is no surprise that the phenomenal surge in population and living standards/expectations in the last few hundred years - both a direct consequence of exploiting our fossil fuel inheritance - should be exposing fault lines every which way. Aquifers, soil, forests, fisheries, coral, ice pack, and species counts are in decline. The very simple answer staring us in the face, yet somehow unthinkable, is to consume far fewer resources and aim to reduce population. Hopefully we can do this in a more controlled way than nature may enforce if we ignore the myriad warnings. This 'solution' will no doubt offend many, but just because we want to continue growth does not mean we can. We need to take control of our destiny, and that starts with us as individuals. Decide to reduce; mentally abandon the growth paradigm."
Investment in green technologies: "Plenty of people are waiting to cash in on green energy, and investment begins to flourish when energy prices soar. But as soon as high energy prices trigger recession, demand flags, prices crash, and the volatility wipes out many green efforts. A year or two of high prices is simply not long enough for a transformation, which takes decades to accomplish." "Those high prices hurt large segments of the (conventional) economy and self-generate volatility. In principle, governments could "artificially" keep energy prices high enough to maintain the impetus for developing alternatives, pumping the revenue into a national alternative energy infrastructure." But the public wouldn't like it. We need "education about the challenges we face - including a sober confrontation of the fact that failure is a likely result of our not bucking up to the challenge."
Peak oil: "The simple observation that a peak in global discovery in the 1960's must be followed by a peak in production some decades later is unassailable." "I would not at all be surprised if a decline makes itself clear by the end of this decade." But "volatility, deliberate withholding, recession, unemployment, wars, etc. can stir in enough complexity to hide the physical truth from us for years."
Dhamar, a governorate of Yemen, is suffering a scarcity of resources, and a December 2011 study funded by the Dutch government said that further population growth will worsen already deteriorating economic conditions and put increased pressure on service sectors such as education, health, food, energy, water, effectively doubling expenditures.
Arable land per capita is expected to fall to 201 square meters, compared to 494 in 2009, while agricultural crops (grains) would fall from 61kg to 22kg per head - all while the growing population will actually need more land and grain to meet demand.
Water availability - which is falling across Yemen - will decline in the governorate from 102 cubic meters to only 42 if the current levels of water produced in the region remain the same.
"More awareness of reproductive health and family planning are needed," it was concluded. The demand for birth control methods is still low due to a lack of awareness - particularly in rural areas - and fears among families of any side effects and risks. Religious views on contraception are also a factor.
The government must offer free delivery services and family planning at medical centers. They must take actions to make families send their children to schools. "Decisions to set the marriage age at 18 and the banning of female genital mutilation have to be supported."
Studies confirm that Yemen's population will increase from 23 million in 2008 to 61 million in 2035 as a result of the high fertility rate - maintaining its position as the fastest growing Arab country. These numbers could be reduced to 46 million in 2035 if proper health and population measures are taken.
By David Roberts
Climate change means we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a lot, beginning immediately. We can increase low-carbon energy supply and/or decrease total energy consumption.
But ramping up clean energy supply can't be done fast enough to keep us within our carbon budget, so we've got to use less energy. We can either reduce the energy intensity of the global economy and/or reduce the growth of the global economy.
Substantially reducing global energy intensity turns out to be extremely difficult, thanks in part to the rebound effect. But if energy intensity can't be reduced quickly enough, then the only answer left is slowing GDP growth. Yikes.
Let's go back to reducing global energy intensity. How difficult would it be to increase global energy efficiency faster than global economic growth? Scholars Soham Baksi and Chris Green claim it would be almost impossible to drive the rate of decline in energy intensity (historically around 1%) much higher than, say, 1.25% through policy interventions.
On the other hand, Danny Harvey, University of Toronto professor - and author of a set of comprehensive textbooks on energy demand and clean energy supply - has done some detailed modeling and believes that "between now and 2050, we can average 3 or 4 % [decline in global energy intensity] a year," and thereby reducing total energy use. The efforts required would be heroic, but within the realm of possibility.
Harvey, when asked whether economic growth can continue as it has, was unequivocal: "Of course not. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. … If we're serious about climatic change, we have to recognize sufficiency, not just efficiency."
A report from the Institute for Integrated Economic Research (EIR) concludes that "while it is possible for emerging economies to improve the well-being of their populations without growing greenhouse gas emissions, it won't be feasible to industrialize them in the ‘green' way everybody hopes for." IER and many others say that, eventually, we'll end up with some kind of steady-state economy, either because we chose and crafted it or because it was forced on us by necessity.
Now for a look at the rebound effect, which is the boost in economic growth spurred by energy efficiency. If we want to "counter" the rebound effect, we have to suppress that growth. Often people discussing this effect recommend raising taxes on energy services that become more efficient, to prevent energy demand from rebounding back up after efficiency pushes it down. But energy taxes would be spent by the government on other things, thus driving economic activity and energy use. There's rebound even here.
The author suggests that, if we don't want to maximize economic growth, but just to get more energy efficiency without additional growth (that's what "avoiding rebound" means), we need to substantially overinvest in efficiency — spend 150% of what's economically optimal, or 200% — to the point that there are effectively no net savings (over the relevant investment horizon). Doing that would get us twice the efficiency with none of the rebound/growth, roughly speaking.
So if we invest our money in "too expensive" projects, we can skip the economic growth and gain enough energy. We can make leaps: not just more efficient furnaces, but passivhaus construction that makes buildings into net energy producers; not just electric cars, but dense, walkable, transit-serviced communities that recycle their water and waste; not just more efficient boilers, but distributed energy sources linked by smart grids into resilient electricity networks. We can spend what's necessary to help nations with limited access to water and power "leapfrog" over carbon-heavy infrastructure straight to the low-carbon kind.
This kind of hyper-efficiency would spur more growth eventually. But by overspending on efficiency in the near term, we would dampen the delayed boost in productivity, at least for a while, and in the meantime be shifting investment to economic sectors with lower energy intensity. Eventually, maybe, we could push global energy intensity down fast enough that when growth resumes, it no longer involves increasing GHG emissions.
The State of California is once again facing a large budget deficit, and the governor and lawmakers face choices that will determine our state's future and the future of programs that Californians depend on.
Their deliberations should be informed by new research showing that California's women have been especially hard hit by the Great Recession.
CalWORKs, California's welfare-to-work program has been cut by more than $3 billion, about $3,000 for each of the 1.1 million children in the program.
Funding for the California State University system was cut by nearly one-third between 2007-08 and 2011-12, while support for community colleges was reduced by almost one-fifth. These budget cuts limit women's access to higher education. Most troubling is the drop - by nearly 130,000 students in recent years, with women accounting for more than 80% of this decline - attending California's community colleges, which help students build employment skills or prepare to transfer to a four-year institution.
State budget cuts also have hit support for child care and preschool, eliminating services for 35,000 children in the current year alone and an additional 62,000 children in 2012-2013, making it harder for working parents to find affordable child care that enables them to remain in - or return to - the workforce.
Between 2007 and 2010, the share of single mothers with jobs dropped by 10%. Only six in 10 single mothers were employed in 2010, the lowest employment rate among this group since 1996. This means that job losses among single mothers in just three years erased all the employment gains this group had made since the implementation of welfare reform in the late 1990s.
Budget choices reflect our values and priorities. As lawmakers seek to close the budget gap, they should strive to help all Californians to achieve success and contribute to the state's prosperity. The very future of our state is at stake.
A. I said this two articles down, but it bears repeating here: If we don't use our fossil fuels now to create the infrastructure for a clean energy supply in the future, we won't have enough energy to do it later, because we also have to use our fossil fuels for our food supply and if we continue to be careless, we will use up our fossil fuels for driving around in SUVs. flying around the world, and fighting wars.
B. What has been happening to Fukushima recently has me thinking that conventional nuclear is no longer an acceptable option: "Fuel Pool 35 Miles from Major American City - which Is Highly Vulnerable to Earthquakes - Contains More Radioactive Cesium than Released By Fukushima, Chernobyl and All Nuclear Bomb Tests Combined. Radioactive Fuel Fires: Not Just a Japanese Problem" http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/nuclear-plant-35-miles-from-major-american-city-with-high-earthquake-risk-has-more-radioactive-cesium-than-released-by-fukushima-chernobyl-and-all-nuclear-bomb-tests-combined.html and http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/the-largest-short-term-threat-to-humanity-the-fuel-pools-of-fukushima.html