Can collapse of modern civilization be avoided, even if CO2 release ended?

This thread primarily focuses on the EROEI and public resistance nuclear energy which has adequately high Energy Return On Energy Invested.
For that purpose the post that was at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...r-more-worse-news.105212/page-49#post-3281948 has been moved here with note left there linking to here. The EROEI problem is more than just "bad news" related to thread of the original posting - it is critical to the world surviving as we know it. Additional post will supply more facts from other sources. Post your POV, concerns and especially any ideas for solutions or reducing the problems.

"Economy" is NOT about money. The EROI ratio is the fundamental equation that allows LIFE or DEATH of a human, plant, animal or economic system.
It takes energy to produce energy. Here are some EROI ratios:

1930 U.S. Oil & Gas Industry = 100/1
1970 U.S. Oil & Gas Industry = 30/1
2000 U.S. Oil & Gas Industry 11/1
Hunter Gatherer = 10/1
Human agriculture = 5/1
U.S. Shale Oil Industry = 5/1
Oil Shale Resources 1-2/1
Human, Horse & plow farming = 1-2/1
U.S. Modern Food Industry = 1/10

Basically, our modern system of getting food to the dinner table is a NET ENERGY LOSER by a factor of 10. The only reason this (net energy losing) modern food system works has been due to the relatively high energy EROI in the past. Advanced technology did not increase the EROI ratio of our food production system, it devoured it. Simple hunter gatherer and human simple farming practices are much more efficient at producing food than our modern system food production-processing-distribution system. And the energy base to sustain it is vanishing! I. e.

Now, the supposed 1 trillion barrels of oil shale resources in the U.S. western states, has a lousy EROI of 1-2/1.
In the 1930’s the United States produced 100 barrels of oil for the market for each barrel of oil consumed in the process. This fell to 30/1 in 1970, 11/1 in 2000 and shale oil production has an average EROI of 5/1.

Text above then considers EROI effects on gold. You can read that at: http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthr...r-for-Qwning-Gold-The-Collapse-Of-Gold-s-EROI

A final note:
More than three decades ago, I read that the cost of an Idaho potato, eaten in NYC restaurant was more than 90% cost of oil. Now it is probably >95% energy cost or it this case, the EROI loss factor is >20. not just the 10 average, perhaps >50, if most of the energy was from "fracking." - Pressure splitting rocks takes a lot of energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

EROI is often now more completely abbreviated as EROEI to specifically note that the investment is energy not dollars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The EROEI pyramid below is from: http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/471651/catch-22-energy-storage

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In case you can't read the table's numbers they are
1.1 to 1, 1.2 to 1, 3 to 1, & 5 to 1 for the bottom four steps, then
Between 7 & 8 to 1 for worker's families only. (As John Smith said to James Town's elite: If you don't work, you don't eat.)
Between 9 & 10 to 1 to cover energy costs for the education need to support a modern society too.
Increase that total to 12 / 1 if you want doctors, hospitals, ambulance services, etc. for modest level of health care.
Then 14 / 1 EROEI is required for some arts, like movies, music groups, theater, etc.

Not mentioned but if you want cell phone towers, internet, iPods & computers, plus more than rudimental public transport (your car) etc. you probably need something well in excess of 15 to 1 EROEI. If you want some assistance to the non-workers and their families, at the level US gives to 1 in every 6 Americans, then something like 20 to 1 EROEI is required.


The immediately following text is start of above link's text:
"Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization. ...

Adding storage greatly reduces the EROEI. Wind “firmed” with storage, with an EROEI of 3.9, joins solar PV and biomass as an unviable energy source. ... The EROEI of solar PV with pumped hydro storage drops to 1.6, barely above breakeven, and with battery storage is likely in energy deficit. This is a rather unsettling conclusion if we are looking to renewable energy for a transition to a low carbon energy system:
We cannot use energy storage to overcome the variability of solar and wind power.

In particular, we can’t use batteries or chemical energy storage systems, as they would lead to much worse figures than those presented by Weißbach et al.* Hydroelectricity is the only renewable power source that is unambiguously viable. However, hydroelectric capacity is not readily scaled up as it is restricted by suitable geography, a constraint that also applies to pumped hydro storage."

Note there is not a word about dollar cost - there is too much distortion for it to be very meaningful, except to the buyer. You could sell anything with enough government subsidies.

* 1.Weißbach et al., Energy 52 (2013) 210. There is printable version at:
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unlike other forms of current solar energy the conversion of solar energy into sugar, has little hidden energy cost if manual labor cuts the cane and does the planting, which is required only about every fifth year* as the cane grows back well from the roots. (Cane is a grass - grows back like your yard grass does.) Thus an EROEI of less than 2 to 1 is all that is required except for transport and construction of the distillation still. See data in the first post.

The EROEI of sugar cane to alcohol fuel is increasing with genetic R & D and already about 12. The energy cost to ferment it and distill it is actually negative as the heat released by burning the crushed cane is more than that required for distillation. In Brazil, increasingly this excess heat produces electric power - now abut 4% of Brazil's annual total electric energy. As ~85% comes from hydro-electric dams, this seasonal "cane power" conserves water behind the dam. A seasonal form of energy storage system and more EROEI efficient than all others, even No.2 (pumped storage).

Sugar cane based alcohol could make low skill jobs for many not now with any salary in the "third world" where there is enough abandoned pasture to avoid any forest destruction - contrary to Big Oil's self serving lies. These new workers with salaries, would buy some products made in "first world" countries like the EU an USA - a win/win system for all but big oil. As every gram of carbon that comes out of a car's tail pipe was earlier removed from the air and there is more stored in the root and the growing cane, plus millions of car fuel tanks, ocean transport tankers, and huge storage tanks at ports and smaller but still large underground ones at filling stations, Sugar cane based fuel is slightly "CO2 negative" source, economically removing some from the air.

* The lowest required EROEI is achieved and food production increased, if one crop like soy beans is planted between cane planting to replenish soil nitrogen, or clover, etc. for animal food can be used to greatly lower fertilizer requirements.

It is my bed time now. Perhaps someone will comment on nuclear power, while I sleep?

 

Yes. EROEI for solar-PV, for example, is higher than EROEI from shale oil. And we can clearly support an economy with EROEI's in the shale oil range. Nuclear is even better, as is wind power.

As is transportation. (Transportation is actually much worse, since for personal transportation, no energy is returned at all.) Both have much lower energy options available that we will avail ourselves of if we need to.

 

I have a round trip commute of a little under one hour that consumes about 50 litres of fuel per week. For the past year I have been working from home on at least three days a week, thereby reducing my fuel usage to about 20 litres per week. My point: humans adapt.

 

Yes, early human agriculture had a higher value of energy return relative to investment, but it also had caps on the amount that could be invested and the caps on what could be returned.

So some kind of modern agriculture has to be maintained, though perhaps not a hydrocarbon based agriculture.

 

Sometimes I wonder if oil shale fracking is itself financially lossy, yet feasible (arguably) because of how it increases oil supplies and subsequently drops the world oil price, boosting economic activity, and tending to boost prosperity, at least for the short term.

 

That POV strongly conflicts with Hall's and several others who have years of experience in evaluation of needed EROEI for various levels of social organization. Do you have any support for the idea that modern society is sustainable, on shale oil, even if its EROEI were not falling with time?

Fact that shale oil is or may be an economical component of the current energy mix, is not any evidence that US society could be sustained by it as it neglects two important factors:
(1) Parts of the energy mix used for example to construct the drilling rigs, transport pipeline, refineries etc. down to the end user's cars and home furnaces, etc. was from energy sources with much higher EROEIs. They are effectively subsidizing the shale oil but, for example, oil from the mid east will not last forever.
(2) Essentially 100% of all that existing infrastructure, used by the shale oil and fracking industries, such as the latter's high pressure pumps, earth movers digging up the critical sand and trucks delivering it to the well sites (and to only mention the infrastructure supplying the water needed) was made long ago with it energy inputs from much higher EROEI sources than shale oil.

The required EROEIs have been given from two different source (Extensive studies by experts, groups lead by Hall & by Weißbach, and separately by many others in his 56 references.) in tables of first two posts. Weißbach also gave in the graph below the minimum economic level required, but it increases with time as the cost of marginal energy increases and the older cheaper sources are depleted. It is important to note that the required minium EROEI for US or EU like society sustainability is always higher than the required minimum for economy line in the graph below. Weissbach's section 6 of his paper (link in OP) defines how the economic minium is set. I admit to not having studied section 6 enough to fully understand it so post it in full at the end, below the graph.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Buffered" means with significant storage. CSP means concentrated solar power in Sahara conditions (many full sun hours)

Section 6: Since the "investor's view" has been used whenever possible there should be a simple relation to the
economy. In fact, the EMROI Rem as dened in sec. 2.5, is supposed to describe the the economic relation
better, even though it depends not only on the kind of the power plant but also on the surrounding market.
Rem is used by many authors as "EROI", but in fact it is somwhere in the middle of the physical EROI
and the actual cost ratio as it still ignores human labour costs. Energetically, human labour is negligible
but nancially, it dominates and represents the welfare of the society or of the sub-society working in this
energy sector. For the returned energy ER, the money to energy ratio is simply given by the usual market
price. For the invested energy EI, however, the ratio is much larger since it contains all the surplus of the
value-added chain. Therefore, an EROI threshold can be roughly estimated by the ratio of the GDP to the
unweighted nal energy consumption while an EMROI threshold can be estimated by the weighted nal
energy consumption (which is not the primary energy consumption). For the U.S., for instance, the GDP
was $15 trillion in 2011 while the unweighted end energy consumption was about 20 trillion kWh, resulting in
an "energy value" of some 70 cent/kWh (Germany 135 cent/kWh). The average electricity price, however,
is 10 cent/kWh [10], (Germany 18 cent/kWh) so there is a factor of 7 higher money to energy ratio on
the input side. The same calculation for the weighted nal energy consumption (the electricity demand was
multiplied by a factor of about 3) results in a ratio of about 16 for both countries, assuming average primary
energy costs of 5 cent/kWh and 3.5 cent/kWh for Germany and the USA, respectively. A similar ratio can
be seen for other countries which leads to the conclusion that the thresholds are 7 and 16 for the EROI and
the EMROI, respectively, assuming OECD-like energy consuming technology. For lower-developed countries
thresholds might be smaller, thus making also "simple" energies like biomass economic.

 

Last and largest part of post 9 is just a quote for completeness. - For one wanting to know how "economic level" was defined. As I noted, I only skimmed it without full understanding; but definitions are always arbitrary. I noted the important fact: that sustainable minimum for US like society is higher than the graph's "economic" level. - About twice higher!
Just look at the graph, but total words about it are not too much to read.

 

Surely not Fraggle. Tiassa has declared that we need to extend the permitted length of posts and anyone who thinks otherwise is engaged in half-witted petulance whose only purpose for existing is self-gratification.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just saying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes and more importantly they find more energy efficient ways to do tasks. For example Ford's new Aluminum body truck would be impossible if Aluminun were still produced chemically instead of by electrolysis - Back when chemically produced it was much more expensive than gold - About the most valuable metal then known. Why it, not gold, in form of tiny pyramid, sits atop the Washington Monument in DC. WM was capped in 1884 - here is photo like drawing of how on wooden platform:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not very accurate - pyramid was only 4 inches tall.

 

True and that higher "cap" reminds me of an old joke about a newly opened business that was losing money on each sale. The brother of the owner pointed this out to owner who replied: Yes I lose money on each sale but I hope to make it up on greater volume.

I.e. A big farm with lower EROEI as using diesel tractors instead of horse drawn plow, has even lower in EROEI and when the output is greater then the energy deficit is even a greater compared to the input.

 

The primary support that I have is that for quite some time, shale oil was economically viable. Thus the cost of that energy was both compatible with our current level of social organization and sufficiently low to ensure that it is profitable for oil companies to participate in. We know that this is the case since the recent oil glut caused several oil companies to abandon shale oil - so we know that there is an economic price limit in action.

Note that I am not claiming that society can be sustained PURELY on shale oil. We currently get our energy from conventional oil, shale oil, natural gas (both tight and conventional) nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, solar, biofuels etc etc. Ramping down only conventional oil would result in a shift to other sources for that energy - primarily shale oil and natural gas, but also biofuels, solar, wind and coal.

Right. On the other hand, the energy required has gone down as manufacturing processes, mining, smelting, transportation and construction have all become more energy efficienty.

 

Can-collapse-of-modern-civilization-be-avoided-even-if-co2-release-ended?
Answer to the OP question. Probably, if we really wanted to.

There is a calculation is that we have a 66% possibility of avoiding an increase in global temperature of more than 2 degrees, provided that we produce less than a total of 1 trillion tons of co2. The total is currently 588,457,098,231 tons and rising.
See http://trillionthtonne.org/

In order to keep below this target, we would have to leave much fossil fuel unused, and use more expensive energy sources instead.

 

That does not address the EROEI problem and is true so long as growing per capita debt is neglected. Not only the US, but the modern world is NOW economically viable ONLY because it is placing the next generations ever deeper into debt. - Not a true sustainable viability, but an illusion of it. Yes, you can live well, way beyond your means on borrowed money, until you can't.

This is much like nuclear power is viable, even the cheapest electrical energy source, as it neglects the long term waste disposal problem (and several other quite serious problems). - Sort of a growing per capita debt it is placing on the next generations.

Here is why shale oil is affordable (for now):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or focusing on US oil and gas firms only, instead of the entire US economy:

 

I'd argue the opposite. Debt is the illusion; real prosperity, as reflected in real standards of living, is the reality. Increases in inflation, for example, could rapidly wipe out our debt.

That's not to say that borrowing and inflation as the basis of an economy is a good idea; it's not. However, energy from oil is real, whereas debt is largely a numbers game. And in real terms, the EROEI from shale oil at $100 a barrel is enough to turn a profit and support our energy usage; at $50 a barrel, it is not.

Long term waste disposal? Store it in place forever. Problem solved. (There of course may be political or image problems from doing that. But again, the reality will be the gigawatts of power that the plant produces over its life rather than the political careers that dry cask on-site storage makes or breaks.)

What other problems?

 

and that is in process - part of why Fed wants higher than current inflation and fears deflation. Paying the debt that way instead of via progressive taxes is also a quite regressive tax on all who simply save (in bank accounts) instead of invest - buy stocks, make businesses, etc. There is no free lunch. Some how, some time, the consumption this generations gets to take in excess of their earnings, will be paid.

I.e. "real prosperity" is not reflected in purchases made with borrowed money that the buyer can not fully pay back, but expects his kids to pay for him. That this is the current condition - is why the per capital debt is rising. Excessive borrowing can give a higher standard of living, but at the expense of a lower one for the next generation. For example home ownership is getting less possible for the college graduates now. Their Social Security payments will be cut, etc.

 

The other critical number, besides return on invested energy, is total yield.

Even a small surplus of energy - yield - would support all human civilization for thousands of years if the tapped source were the thermal energy of the Earth's core, for example. We could return 99% of the energy obtained into the means of obtaining it, and still enjoy a civilization of profligacy and essentially free energy.

Also, the numbers on both nuclear and thermal ("concentrating", usually) solar are deceptive - nuclear costs never include waste handling or accident remediation or finite resource depletion in various necessary and scarce materials, solar numbers never include adjustments for industrial standardization and scale and innovation in either capture or storage (the numbers used are "conservatively" estimated entirely from boutique projects, one-offs based on decades old technology). It's not even common to include thermal solar at all - usually, as in the early posts here, PV solar is the only form considered.

And of course the energy needed to support civilization depends on the efficiency of its use as well as supply - and this depends partly on the form of supply. It's almost impossible to use oil efficiently for transportation, for example.

The ecological analogy would be with herbivory, rather than predation: if you're a baleen whale eating tons of krlll an hour, you can easily survive on a much lower payoff ratio than a killer whale needs from their occasional seal meal. We've been predating.