Energy Policy

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Energy Policy, Analysis 7, rA

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7

Revision A

For the love of the human race.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Our Thesis

This is not a game of blind chance. This is not a game of fear mongering. This is a zero-sum game of war[1]: if rationality does not prevail in this war; we, our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren will lose. Deciding not to play is a decision to lose. If rationality does not prevail, the forces we call nature will make the necessary decisions for us: we will lose and be stranded without the necessary survival map and plan. Nobody will like the solution.

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html Better results were achieved by playing the video clip directly from this site, rather than by linking through YouTube. Click on the arrow in the middle of the picture, rather than on the black bar at the top. This is Part 7.

Dr. Bartlett begins by addressing the problem of technological optimism. In spite of the fact that it is obviously untrue, many people, including engineers, mathematicians, and scientists continue to embrace the delusion that man can solve any problem: if we only had enough time and money.

“We must educate people to see the need to examine carefully the allegations of the technological optimists who assure us that science and technology will always solve all of our problems of population growth, food, energy and resources.”[2]

Dr. Julian Simon (1932-1998) of University of Illinois, University of Maryland, Heritage Foundation, etc.[3] “Copper can be made from other metals.”[4] … “Clearly there is no meaningful limit to this source except the sun’s energy…. But even if our sun were not as vast as it is, there may well be other suns elsewhere.”[5]

These and other statements that result from cornucopian theories need little refutation.

“In 2010, worldwide biofuel production reached 105 G-liters (28 G-gallons US), up 17% from 2009, and biofuels provided 2.7% of the world's fuels for road transport, a contribution largely made up of ethanol and biodiesel.”[6]

NB: gallons, not barrels, this amount is minuscule. At this rate, when fossil fuels run out, the world will face a 97% reduction in energy resources: this must be viewed as a catastrophic drop.

Biomass may be a scientific possibility; but. it is far from being a practical reality. It’s development threatens the food supply, and it has yet to be shown that it is truly exothermic in the overall scale. Presently, the only biomass fuels really on the table are biodiesel and ethanol. Even Dr. Simon cannot possibly be suggesting that we burn hay, straw, and wood in internal combustion engines. The return to external combustion steam engines as the principal mode of transportation would be a major problem.

Even so, Simon “was a trusted policy advisor at the very highest levels in Washington D. C.”²

Simon’s supporters include Kemp and Forbes.

“People are not a drain on the resources of the planet.”^{^[7]}

“CNN recently ran a silly series purporting to show the world is in mortal danger because there are too many of us. In poorer countries those many mouths mean poverty. In richer countries we are wrecking the earth’s atmosphere with pollution. It’s all nonsense.”^{^[8]}

We conclude that Mr. Kemp and Mr. Forbes are all nonsense. Don’t waste your money on Forbes Magazine.

Dr. Bartlett then looks to Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)[9] with Bill Moyers.[10]

“Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

“Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor; if two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom….”

“Asimov: In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual matters.

Dr. Asimov’s delightful and humorous parable, nevertheless falls short of the reality, even though we have heard reports, from serious social students, about thirty or more people being crammed into single bedrooms in Cleveland, with no bathroom, only a place at the end of the hall. Sharing bathrooms, is, for the most part an inconvenience, not a hardship. A better illustration would be thirty people sharing two plates, and those without food. Indeed, if two bathrooms represent the whole world, thirty people may be a problem. However, thirty people with two plates and no food is an even bigger problem. Dr. Asimov’s parable fails to address the grim reality that the problem is more than an inconvenience, it is an issue of life and death. Even if the population was reduced to two, and plates need not be shared, there is no food left to put on them, and both will die of starvation. It is access to food, clothing, and shelter; perhaps, even the air we breathe, that must be conserved. The termination of fossil fuels many spell the end of food, clothing, and shelter for many people.

Quality of life, Asimov’s hodgepodge of terms is ambiguous. “Dignity, decency, and value of life” need definition. My lifestyle may require an unobstructed view of Pikes Peak from my living room window: this is hardly a life and death necessity. We might even think of the person who insists on such a thing as a spoiled brat. We are not interested in this sort of philosophical discussion. We are only interested in those concrete realities, which threaten human life. We must draw a distinction between the inconvenience of the shared bathroom and existence itself.

Because we subscribe to the conviction that less government is better government we have trouble taking Dr. Bartlett’s political illustrations about Boulder and the United States very seriously. The inevitable and ultimate collapse of all democracies is thoroughly examined elsewhere.[11] Democracy cannot be made into a successful form of government on any large scale: like a whale on the beach, it is doomed to perish under its own weight.

“The simple arithmetic makes it absolutely clear that long-term preservation of the environment in the U. S. is impossible in the face of continued U. S. population growth!”²

Nevertheless, we are compelled to agree that:

“Smart growth destroys the environment. Dumb growth destroys the environment. Now, smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste. So, it’s a little like buying a ticket on the Titanic; if you’re smart, you go first class; if you’re dumb you go [steerage], any way you go: the result’s the same.”²

The problem with the Titanic is not that there were too many people on board. The problem with the Titanic is that a complexity of problems existed for which there were inadequate and insufficient solutions. It was the lack of solutions that resulted in so many tragic and unnecessary deaths. In the ensuing panic, good men turned cruel, locking victims below deck, and guaranteeing slaughter. It is the consumption and destruction of the environment with which we are primarily concerned.

We do not agree with the idea that global warming is a major problem. With the demise of fossil fuels clearly in sight, once they are gone, the earth will probably begin to cool again. If, in a hundred years or so, global warming continues to be a problem; it will not be because of fossil fuel combustion; it will be because of factors that are most likely beyond our control.

What we fear is that we will fail to manage the resources we do have in time to prevent disaster. When we are faced with a complexity of problems for which there are only inadequate and insufficient solutions, panic will be the inevitable result. Formerly, good men will turn cruel, and the guaranteed slaughter will commence.

Dr. Bartlett concludes this part:

“Now, except for those petroleum graphs, the things I’ve told you are not predictions of the future, I’m only reporting facts, and the results of some very simple arithmetic. But I do so with confidence that these facts, this arithmetic and more importantly, our level of understanding of them, will play a major role in shaping our future. Now, don’t take what I’ve said blindly or uncritically, because of the rhetoric, or for any other reason. Please, you check the facts. Please check my arithmetic. If you find errors, please let me know. If you don't find errors, then I hope you’ll take this very, very seriously.²

“You are important people. You can think. If there’s anything that is in short supply in the world today, it’s people who are willing to think.”²

Our Conclusion

Dr. Bartlett has challenged us to examine his facts, his arithmetic and look for errors. He has challenged us to think. There is nothing wrong with his arithmetic. His data, by his own admission, need constant and incessant updating, as will ours. Nevertheless, we believe, by failing to push for a solution including all of the necessary conditions, not just one of these necessary conditions, that Dr. Bartlett has left the door open for a significant false bias. A solution including all of the necessary conditions is also sufficient. A solution including only some of the necessary conditions is insufficient. We will continue to press for the solution which is both necessary and sufficient. We believe that such a solution is expressed by The Law of Carrying Capacity.

[1] In terms of game theory, this is probably closer to a game of Chicken.

[2] Dr. Bartlett

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon

[4] Science, June 27, 1980, Volume 208, page 1431

[5] Simon, Julian Lincoln, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton University Press, 1981: page 49)

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

[7] Kemp, Jack (HUD Secretary), High Country News, January 27, 1992, page 4 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp

[8] Forbes, Malcolm S., Jr., “Fact and Comment,” Forbes Magazine, June 8, 1992, page 25 See http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/mediawatch-june-1992?, page=9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

[10] Moyers, Bill, A World of Ideas (Doubleday, New York City, 1969: page 276)

[11] Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy (Trilateral Commission: 227 pages)

Energy Policy, Analysis 6, rA

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6

Revision A

For the love of the human race.

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Our Thesis

We agree with Dr. Bartlett that any solution requires the education and participation of every single one of the earth’s seven billion plus residents. The problem is of such complexity and magnitude that no one person can possibly see lasting solutions. Moreover, the problem impinges on human freedom, so it is unreasonable to expect that lasting solutions can be achieved by humans coercing other humans.

These obstacles can defeat us: 1. Unwillingness to change in the face of the facts. 2. Inadvertently or deliberately ignoring the facts. 3. Failure to collect accurate, up-to-date data. 4. Inability to find sufficient meaningful solutions in time to avert catastrophe.

This is not a game of blind chance. This is not a game of fear mongering. This is a zero-sum game of war: if rationality does not prevail in this war; we, our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren will lose. Deciding not to play is a decision to lose. If rationality does not prevail, the forces we call nature will make the necessary decisions for us: we will lose and be stranded without the necessary survival map and plan. Nobody will like the solution.

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6

Dr. Bartlett discusses new discoveries further. He shows decisively, that these discoveries deserve critical evaluation. At the very least, the size of the discovery must be divided by the rate of consumption to arrive at the time it will last. Most of these evaluations result in times of a few days. Truly enormous volumes of oil, when compared to current consumption, turn out to be amazingly minuscule. The problem is not that the discovery was not significantly gigantic. The problem is that our consumption is horrendous and growing. Dr. Bartlett claims that the necessary, but not sufficient cause is overpopulation. We maintain that the necessary, but not sufficient cause is overconsumption. We also believe that the conditions which are both necessary and sufficient causes, are the product of population and consumption.

Dr. Bartlett discusses ethanol fuels. At the present time 10% ethanol and gasoline mixes have been a commercially available product for several years: but, not everybody uses them. Many engines burn straight gasoline, avgas, jet-fuel, bunker C, and other oil based fuels which contain no ethanol. Oil is also used in the production of asphalt pavement and some plastics, possibly even rubber. When these other uses are factored in, we conclude that Dr. Bartlett’s 1% figure is about right. We also concur with Dr. Bartlett’s observation that ethanol production is most likely endothermic, or so slightly exothermic as to not be worth the trouble of producing it. I’m tired of paying $1,000 to replace my engine gaskets that were destroyed by ethanol. One gallon of ethanol will not move a car as many miles as one gallon of gasoline: so the pump price is deceptive; it looks like a savings, when it is actually an increased cost. Presently, the government is considering the license of E15, a 15% ethanol and gasoline mix: this can only make matters worse.

Dr. Bartlett emphasizes, “We cannot let other people do our thinking for us.” We need to take this exhortation seriously. Resolution of this problem requires the commitment of all of the earth’s seven billion plus population. We remember in the joke about ham and egg breakfast that the pig is committed, while the chicken is only involved.

Dr. Bartlett’s examination of worldwide per-capita consumption of oil is around half a gallon per day and decreasing as it follows the Peak Oil curve. In contrast to the worldwide average, American consumption is around two gallons per day. Much of the world perceives this as unfair: we could tell them that they are better off walking, better off not becoming dependent on fossil fuels, but they probably wouldn’t hear us. The false-glitter of American toys is often very attractive: it shouldn’t be, but it is. There is some justification for our disproportionately high consumption of oil: we have built an economy where our lives depend on oil. When oil is gone, vast numbers of our population will probably die. The problem is not the oil, its use, or its depletion; it is our refusal to manage a life-sustaining resource.

Dr. Bartlett shows from one of Dr. Hubbert’s charts that in the 10,000 years or more of human existence, both historical and future, that the age of fossil fuels is little more than a pimple in the millennia of man. In one hundred years or so, this discussion will no longer be important. However, in adapting to the depletion of fossil fuels, human beings will suffer incredible tragedy. This may not be Armageddon, but for a while it will certainly seem like it.

Dr. Bartlett is right. We have embraced an idol. Growth has replaced God in our vocabulary. We worship growth, and we will certainly pay the price for doing that.

“We have evolved into what amounts to an exponential-growth culture. I would say, it’s more than a culture: it’s our national religion, because we worship growth. Pick up any newspaper; you’ll see headlines such as this: ‘State forecasts robust growth.’”[1]

On a recent TV segment of less than an hour the word, growth, was repeated at least four times in similar contexts.

“So, what do we do? In the words of Winston Churchill, ‘Sometimes we have to do what is required.’”¹ This applies whether we like it or not. Medicine may taste bitter; but, it is still medicine and we must take it. Today’s pop mantra is, “Don’t listen to negative people.” When the truth is negative, we ignore it at our own peril. The goddess of growth must be cast down and trampled underfoot.

Dr. Bartlett outlines some of the essential points for successful national and worldwide programs.

1. “we ought to have a big increase in the funding for research in the development and dispersion of renewable energy.”

2. “We must educate all of our people to an understanding of the arithmetic and consequences of growth, especially in terms of the earth’s finite resources.”

3. “We must educate people to recognize the fact that growth of populations and growth of rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.”

Dr. Bartlett quotes his own, “The First Law of Sustainability: Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.” He will develop twenty more laws of sustainability, with many corollaries.[2] We shall have to visit these later.

Dr. Bartlett writes “It is intellectually dishonest to talk about sustainability without stressing the obvious fact that stopping population growth is a necessary condition for sustainability!” “Population restraint is a necessary condition but it is not the sufficient condition.”

The other necessary, but not sufficient condition is restraint of consumption. The two constraints are interrelated. The necessary and sufficient condition is the product of the two interrelated conditions on a per capita basis.

The Law of Carrying Capacity

We introduce here our own law,

The Law of Carrying Capacity (CC):

0 ≤ CC ≡ P * C_pc ≤ 1

Where: P is the population at any time and place, and C_pc is the per capita consumption due to that same population. One (1) is 100% of Carrying Capacity which cannot be exceeded. Once conditions of 100% sustainability equilibrium are reached for any fixed location, further growth in CC cannot take place. If P increases by a factor of u, C_pc must decrease by a factor of 1/u. If C_pc increases by a factor of v, P must decrease by a factor of 1/v.

If individuals attempt to violate these equilibrium conditions, nature will restore them by force: people will die or they will experience uncontrollable shortages of resources.

If greedy individuals decide that it is necessary to consume more than their fair share, they are in effect committing murder. Fair share is not a worldwide constant. People living in the tropics have different needs than people in the polar regions. Arid climates create different needs than humid climates.

Therefore, CC must be maintained in balance both globally and regionally: but CC must be tuned, region by region. Moreover, sharing mechanisms must be in place to maintain CC under changing conditions. For this reason it would be wise to incorporate a safety factor to accommodate unusual conditions.

We hope to develop this idea more completely in the future and compare it with Dr. Bartlett’s Twenty-one Laws of Sustainability.

Our Conclusion

A few objections to Dr. Bartlett’s and Dr. Hubbert’s studies were soundly refuted. The principal corrective factor rests in not letting others do our thinking for us.¹ All new evidence and reports need to be carefully examined. There are many gainsayers in high places.

The idolatrous religion of growth must and will be destroyed: but when and at what cost?

Will we be able to overcome the idol of growth in time to avoid the terrible costs that now overtake us? Most of the resolution begins with honest education: if we know the truth, perhaps we will have time to combat the problem. To accomplish this, we need to develop a culture of sustainability. Most of the present sustainability discussion is just talk, hot air; some of the more important discussions are buried and clouded with irrelevant emotional issues, opinions, and human desires. We need a science of sustainability based on nonnegotiable fact. To develop such a science we need to discover sustainability laws. The core of such laws already exists in the science of thermodynamics, and related fields, but it needs application. We have begun by proposing The Law of Carrying Capacity.

0 ≤ CC ≡ P * C_pc ≤ 1

[1] Dr. Bartlett

[2] http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-11-06/dr-albert-bartletts-laws-sustainability

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Exponential Curve 5

Exponential Curve 5

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 5

For the love of the human race.

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Our Thesis

We are greatly indebted to Dr. Albert Allen Bartlett (1923-2013), former emeritus professor of physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.[1] These are Dr. Bartlett’s ideas, we are merely reporting them. We have performed a lengthy analysis of Dr. Bartlett’s “arithmetic” elsewhere.[2]

One cannot investigate either energy policy or energy theory without a thorough understanding of the exponential curve.[3]

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 5

Strength Through Exhaustion

“Energy industries agree that to achieve some form of energy self-sufficiency the U. S. must mine all the coal that it can.”[4]

Clearly, the editors at Time Magazine are full of hot air.

David Brower (1912-2000)[5] called this the policy of “strength through exhaustion.”

I liken this to driving at sixty miles per hour; learning that there is an immovable concrete barrier thirty miles ahead; then deciding to increase speed by 7% a mile.

T_e = 1 / ln (b) * ln [ ln (b) * A / y₀ + 1 ]

T_e ≈ 1 / r * ln [ r * A / y₀ + 1 ]

This reduces the remaining time until collision from 30 minutes to 16 minutes, increases the impact velocity to 182 miles per hour, and triples the momentum. It also guarantees that no one will be maimed in the accident. The 182 mile per hour impact velocity pretty much guarantees that all living occupants will be vaporized or reduced to dust. Any remains for burial will have to be located with a sponge or a vacuum cleaner. It is the instant cremation and dispersion of ashes in one swift motion.

Strength through exhaustion, simply won’t work. The sensible person slows down and puts on the brakes. There is an end to this road and T_e is its immovable, inexorable name.

Consumption vs. Production

“1994 was the first year in our nation’s history in which we had to import more oil than we were able to get out of our own ground.”[6]

This comment explains the major difference between energy consumption and energy production. When energy consumption exceeds energy production, the difference is what we must purchase from foreign producers. We continue to import more oil than we produce to this very day.

Energy Peaks

We have already showed that all growth plans must peak. There are only three ways to avoid a peak: 1. Follow a zero growth model, in which case the peak is flat. 2. Follow a declining growth model, in which case the peak is behind us historically. 3. Abstain from using the resource at all. All growth plans peak.

Momentum

We realize from the principles of momentum that it is impossible to go from peak to zero with no elapsed time. Even a crash into an immovable object requires a few seconds for the vehicle and its occupants to be crushed.

Gaussian Curves

Is there an “arithmetic” model that better explains such behavior? The answer is, yes. There is a family of curves, the Gaussian Curves, including the ordinary bell shaped curve that best explains this behavior. All Gaussian Curves are not bell shaped. Some have a long tail extending to the left or to the right, which is called, appropriately, skewness. Others may be more flattened on top; this is called kurtosis. When two or more processes are superimposed over one another, multiple peaks occur; the name for this is bimodalism, multimodalism, or polymodalism. Polymodalism explains why there are bumps on the curve. Statisticians deal with these concepts every day; so, if you find these ideas confusing, get a statistician to explain them to you.

Peak Growth

Now Dr. Bartlett introduces the concept of peak growth. Until this point our mapping has only considered exponential growth. Government, business, industrial leaders, and many individuals assume the exponential growth will continue indefinitely. These prognosticators are evidently oblivious to the cartoon where the exponential curve blows a hole in the ceiling. If these movers and shakers could possibly be successful at selling their insane schemes of indefinite growth, they would proceed with their plans until every last ounce of any given commodity was consumed. Then the graph would come to a screeching halt. The car would hit the barricade. Everyone on board would be killed and that would be that.

Discontinuity

Such an infinitely sloped decrease or increase in mathematics is called a discontinuity. It is easily drawn on a graph. Fortunately, discontinuity is nearly impossible to achieve in nature. Almost all things have some mass, even electrons, and they cannot be made to change direction abruptly. In the case of our car crash model, we could observe this using high-speed, time-lapse photography, and we could watch the car and human bodies being reshaped as energy was dissipated.

In any case there can be no question that a peak was, or someday will be reached. It is impossible to make exponential curves continue indefinitely: all of them approach infinity at terrifying speed. Finite man, simply has no capacity for infinity, which is exactly what the word means. Infinity is usually, perhaps always, the result of trying to divide by zero, it cannot be done. So there must be a peak. There must also be a path back downward to zero, either catastrophic or more sloped. In our last session we showed how to calculate the maximum peak for an exponential curve. Simply calculate T_e using this formula.

T_e = 1 / ln (b) * ln [ ln (b) * A / y₀ + 1 ]

Then use T_e to calculate the maximum peak from this formula.

y = a * b^Te

Decision Makers

Business and political economic decision makers create and change the shape of the curve. The shape of the downward curve is determined largely by human decision, as is the case with the upward curve. The mathematician and the scientist simply create a map to explain what is happening. As human decisions change, new maps must be created.

This does not mean that either the math or the science was wrong. It simply means that some decision makers changed their minds. It is the height of foolishness to abandon or discredit the math because of a decision change made by business and political leaders.

Availability

Availability of a given resource is the one thing that business and political economic decision makers cannot change: they can hide it; they can lie about it; they cannot alter its reality. A peak will occur. Multiple peaks may occur. The time and size of these peaks are determined by human decision and the availability of the remaining resource, and not by the mathematician or scientist. The mathematician and scientist are simply trying to provide a reasonable means of prediction based on contemporary decision policy, and predicted reserves.

Decline

Even if the peak is reached abruptly, the crash will take some time as local storage is used up. The resource producer will be the first to realize that he is out of business. The end user will have his last tank to budget as he tries to plan his survival. How long can you conserve a tank of gas? A downward slope is inevitable. It may be skewed, it may have bumps, it may be bimodal, it may be slow, but it probably won’t be abrupt. Why?

Undiscovered Resources

We have a good idea where the remaining reserves are located, and what their size is. Most of these reserves are not yet in production. Starting production costs money and takes time. Decision makers are the ones who determine when and where it is a good financial decision to open a new mine, buy new equipment, invest in a new process, or build a new refinery. Several of these reserves are shale oil. Shale oil is not processed the same way as crude bubbling up out of the ground. Deep mines are operated differently than strip mines.

Limits of Technology

Technological obstacles also exist. This is why we can only get 50% of the coal out of the ground. Even if we know how, costs may be prohibitive. The value of coal will have to increase dramatically to motivate going after it. Not many years ago the depth of wells was limited by pressure to roughly 3,000 psi. Hydraulic equipment was designed for those pressures. When deeper drilling was desired, new technology was developed, pushing pressures beyond 3,000 toward 6,000 and even 10,000 psi. Oil is a very dangerous substance at 3,000 psi: the presence of any air guarantees a fire. At 6,000 or 10,000 psi explosions can be guaranteed, and the limits of material strength are being reached. Common steel can only withstand around 36,000 psi: so things wear out more rapidly, it takes more force to pump at such pressures. The costs go up, and progress goes down. It takes time and money to solve such technological problems.

Public Attitude

Popular obstacles also exist. The neighbors will probably object to an operation destroying the view from their picture window, cutting down their favorite forest, muddying their water supply, or locating a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Public outrage can slow, modify, or even stop a project.

Undeniable Reality

All of these factors militate that the downward slope will become progressively slower as it becomes harder and harder to locate and develop new reserves. The obvious mathematical map is some kind of a negative growth curve for much of its path. An even better, more realistic map is that of a Gaussian curve, a bell curve, which accounts for the necessary negative growth rate changes on the bottom path.

So it is impossible to deny the reality of peak theory. Granted, this is a bit like trying to map a bumpy emergency crash landing, but it would still be nice to have something to aim at: like a nice soft pasture, or a convenient highway with no traffic.

Problems

Dr. Bartlett notes that possibly 3.2 G-bbl of crude oil exist in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: about a 15 month supply at current consumption. The peak in the extraction rate of U. S. crude oil was predicted to occur between 1966 and 1971. This prediction was made by Dr. Hubbert in 1956 when world oil consumption was still growing steadily at 7.04% per year. The U. S. Department of Energy fixed the actual U. S. peak at about 3.5 G-bbl per year in 1970. The Alaska reserves were discovered around 1982.

The curve development was dramatically shifted by the Alaskan discovery and OPEC increases in world oil prices, which prompted the U. S. energy crisis.

Coping

Dr. Bartlett continues. “The estimated U. S. supply [of crude oil] from undiscovered resources and demonstrated reserves is 36 years at present rates of production or 19 years in the absence of imports.”[7] “Please note that this is tracking faithfully down the back slope of the Peak Oil curve.”³ This will certainly continue to be a major problem for us, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. By refusing to deal with this emergency crisis we are mortgaging the future to the detriment of world society.

The obvious solution is to reduce consumption drastically.

No one will (like this solution, but it is necessary to preserve life.

We, the consumers of oil, can change the occurrence of peak oil by changing our use habits. A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption would move the graph considerably.

Our Conclusion

Dr. Bartlett’s defense of Peak Oil theory is correct. The attempts to discredit this theory will finally prove to be vain. The final shape of the curve may not be known: the size and time of the peak, bimodal behavior, and a degree of skewness or kurtosis are all possible within the practical application of this math. That being said, the peak or peaks have or will take place, and the downhill progression is inevitable. The final shape of such bell shaped curves is ultimately determined by decision makers, not by scientists; but, once the downhill slide is begun it cannot be halted by decisions. Instead of a crash, this is more like that sickening feeling you get when you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere. You are hopelessly out of control as your engine sputters, and you coast to a stop.

Our leaders are not taking the sensible steps to put on the brakes and manage this crisis. We should be operating on reduced growth conservation plans, negative percentages. Our federal budget should be considering a -5% budget, instead of a +5% budget. Our president should be pushing for cuts, rather than performing draconian theatrics to get the increases he wants. The falsification of news reports continues, unabated.

Where are the real leaders who will stand up and face this crisis honestly and head on?

[8]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett

[2] http://swantec-ep.blogspot.com/2014/11/energy-policy-analysis-5-ra.html

[3] http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video2.html

[4] Time Magazine, May 19, 1975, page 55

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brower

[6] Dr. Bartlett

[7] Science, January 27, 1984, page 382

[8] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely given. No other permission is required for their use.