How to Exit the Age of Oil: Closing the Renewables Gap

By Stephen Lacey, Editor
August 18, 2010 | 23 Comments

Do you like this podcast?

Bookmark

Feed

New Hampshire -- We are living in a time when the theory of unlimited economic growth is running into the reality of limited energy sources. To solve the problem, it is commonly thought that renewables are simply a drop-in replacement for oil, gas and coal – but many experts are warning about the faultiness of that assumption.

Renewables offer less “net energy” than fossil fuels have historically delivered. That means they require more up-front energy (and financial) investment to procure a unit of energy.

We have grown our global economy on the assumption that we'd always have abundant energy. However, with renewables, which are less energy dense and more diffuse, we may have to re-evaluate our vision of growth, say some energy experts.

100 years ago, the energy return on energy invested (EROI) for a barrel of oil was 100 to 1. That means it took one barrel of oil to get 100 barrels out of the ground. Today, because companies need to go far deeper to get the resource, some estimates put the EROI of oil at around 15:1. Coal is at around 30 to 1 and gas is between 10-40 to 1.

Renewables like biofuels, solar, wind and geothermal range from 1.5 to 1 all the way up to around 18 to 1, according to various estimates. While the performance and net energy of renewables is improving, they still don't match the historically-high energy density of fossil resources that we've come to rely upon for growth. This disparity between resources is sometimes referred to as “The Renewables Gap.”

In this podcast, we'll have a look at the Renewables Gap and what it means for the length and complexity of the transition away from fossil resources.

We'll start off with a surprising tale of an undergraduate student who uncovered an alleged conspiracy at the International Energy Agency to hide the peak oil problem. Lionel Badal talks about his adventures trying to alert politicians and journalists to the issue.

Then, Author, Activist and 350.org Founder Bill McKibben talks about what society will look like on this new “Eaarth” (as his new book is called) being formed by a changing climate and limited energy resources.

Energy expert and author Vaclav Smil gives us some historical context to the current energy transition. He'll argue that renewable energy advocates are being unrealistic in their assumptions that we can switch to renewables in a very short period of time.

Author and Lawyer Jeff Vail talks about his worry that the Renewables Gap is not being addressed by politicians, energy companies or the financial community. Without a proper assessment of the net energy equation, he says, we may be setting ourselves up for failure.

Journalist and Financial Analyst Tom Konrad talks about why he's a technological optimist, but a social pessimist. He'll describe why a radical economic shift will be the only factor that forces the move to renewables and efficiency.

And finally, Jack Oswald, CEO of the bio-ammonia company Syngest, outlines his scenario of future “Energy Abundance.” He'll lament the lack of vision we've shown in solving our problems related to energy.

Inside Renewable Energy is a weekly audio news program featuring stories and interviews on all the latest developments in the renewable energy industries.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

23 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 23

william-fitch-22587

August 18, 2010

Hi:

I listened to the first half then found myself saying, "well yea" too much, and cut out. I liked the Podcast though.. its just that to me it was all kind of "see spot run stuff" and "no fooling".
I really think when you get down to it, the whole situation and the answers are obvious. Note I said answers not solutions.
We built a world based on currency. If you listen to the audio and stand back, what all the parties are saying (here and everywhere else)is really that we have the engineering answers but money is in the way. The very cause of the wrong roads we took are functioning as the roadblocks to a cure. Most ironic really, and has the makings of a good Greek tragedy. The inevitable collapse of a currency based world is as certain as its lack of sustainability. The worlds reality today is still by far, that the man in the desert with a twenty in his wallet, is worth more than the man caring around 10 dollars worth of bottled water. Solutions will be enacted only when that switches. Unfortunately, for it to switch, it has to collapse first...
As a Hollywood closing thought, I love movies, especially ones that deal with thought provoking content. In the 2002 remake of, "The Time machine" Alexander travels 800,000 years into the future to have a simple question answered. Why is he unable to save Emma, the love of his life, with his time machine? The answer is given to him by the Cast intellect Morlock. "..you built your time machine because of Emma's death. If she had not died it never would have been built, so how can you use it to go back and save her. You are the inescapable result of your own tragedy, just as I am the inescapable result of you."
Just a thought...

.....Bill

Comment
2 of 23

RonTolmie

August 19, 2010

The most abundant, most accessible and cheapest renewable energy source is not subject to any of the limitations outlined by the author, except perhaps for the implied criticism that people are focusing on ineffectual solutions.

The heat in the summer air is a virtually unlimited source of energy that is suitable for heating (and indirectly for cooling) which accounts for a very large part of our GHG emissions. That collected energy (called Atmospheric Energy) can be stored in the ground so it can be utilized as required, just like fossil fuels. This inexpensive technology could be used right now for most buildings in North America, but it is being ignored.

Comment
3 of 23

ronald-corso-50476

August 20, 2010

You are preaching nonsense. If I understand your point, you are comparing the energy costs to construct oil, gas, and coal energy facilities to the energy cost to build renewable facilities. If that's the case, your equation has left out most of the problem. Let's take the most efficient renewable - hydropower, as an example. A modern hydropower plant is over 90 % efficient. While you may argue that it takes more energy to build a hydropower project than the fossil fuel alternative, hydropower plants have been operating in many instances for 100 years. For the next 100 years, while you are mining, drilling, etc. and burning fossil fuels, hydropower is getting all of its energy free of energy costs. The real answer is that the net energy use from any fossil fuel is far greater than that of a renewable, especially the more efficient renewables like hydropower and wind. So, please do the arithmetic with the entire equation. Net energy includes all energy costs over the life of the energy facility.

Comment
4 of 23

Erich

August 20, 2010

All political persuasions agree, building soil carbon is GOOD,in the long run, the final arbiter/accountancy/ measure of sustainability will be soil carbon content and the truth of proper land-management and Biochar systems will be self-evident. At an EROI of 9:1, a pretty sweet deal.

The Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration Standard is in final review by the AMS-ARC branch at USDA, which allows Farmers account for their good work.

The agronomic history of civilization shows that the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians were the only ones to maintain fertility for the long haul, millennium scales. Egypt has now forsaken their geologic advantage by building the Aswan dam, and are stuck, with the rest of us, in the soil Carbon mining, fossil fueled, NPK rat race, to the bottom.

In E.O.Wilson's "The Future of Life" he opens the book with a letter to Thoreau updating him on our current understanding of soil ecology at Walden Pond.

Arthropods present in dozens-hundreds, then barely visible to the naked eye, the numbers jump to thousands; Nematode and enchytraied pot worms, mites, springtails, pauropods, diplurans,and tardigrades seethe in the underground. Their home is a labyrinth of miniature caves and walls of rotting vegetable debris cross-strung with ten yards of fungal threads. Penetrate microscopic water films on grains of sand, and find ten billion bacteria in a thimble full. Wilson concludes;

"Now it is up to us to summon a more Encompassing Wisdom."

Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio research. Thankfully we can do Pyrolitic Biofuels now.

Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture (via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly) of virtually all things in the near future.

This convergence of different technologies will end the Combustion age.

Comment
5 of 23

exploraberg

August 20, 2010

Hi friends,

this is the best round up article ever red recently. Like a Club of Rome open access expert discussion, how we have to adapt our global energy vision as quickly as earth climate changes. I'm a technology optimist too, but worried about social behaviour: It's more comfortable to "sit in the boat" and look what happens around me, without rowing.

Comment
6 of 23

electric38

August 20, 2010

One item that has been lightly discussed is the quantum leap in construction and manufacturing speed and techniques. Renewable powered robotics will come into play in the manufacturing of the renewable energy systems (including renewable powered robotics and swappable batteries).
We keep hearing how far into the future the changes will be, but we are not living in the stone age, we only need the hearts and minds of our industry and political leaders to make this happen. And it can happen quickly.
The BOCU (bank, oil, car, utility) monopolistic control is by far the hardest obstacle to overcome.
They do not want the consumer to pull away from their influence.

Comment
7 of 23

jh-millar-143064

August 20, 2010

I am one of those people who think there are silver bullets for the problem. At least 3 companies in California are already making a profit out of artificial petroleum from ocean algae. These processes are scalable and ocean algae are a limitless resource. In a very short time we should not need to drill or buy any more in-the-ground petroleum. The ocean algae source frees us from building up carbon in the air, it frees us from the threat of terrorism (the terrorists are only there because of our oil money), and it frees us from having a military budget greater than the sum of all the other military budgets in the world (the giant Pentagon budget is mostly to protect our oil sources), so it's a win-win-win proposition.

The second silver bullet comes from Northrop-Grumman Shipyard in Virginia, where the new aircraft carrier George H W Bush is being fitted with a radically new nuclear power plant, many times more efficient than previous (almost no waste!) and many times safer than previous plants. Northrop-Grumman is evaluating whether to make such plants on a modular basis on barges and tow them to any powerplant on a waterway that needs them -- essentially, to plug it in and replace the coal furnace. The only fly in the ointment is that eventually we will run out of nuclear fuel.

I would love to hear from experts why we aren't putting more of our eggs into those two baskets which offer so much promise at so little relative cost.

Comment
8 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 20, 2010

To make a convincing argument, you're going to need to apply scientific logic in a much more disciplined manner. A few of the obvious holes:

"We are living in a time when the theory of unlimited economic growth is running into the reality of limited energy sources."
This is a statement of faith to the members of the Church of Peak Oil. To the great unwashed masses it is unsubstantiated speculation. The economic theory is that as the resources move through the supply chain, value is added, so that unlimited growth is still theoretically possible from limited resources, if the supply chain can keep adding increasing value to the resource. Technology may yet save our behinds.

Also, as a resource becomes more limited, opportunities for recycling become more attractive. It has already happened to a large degree to aluminum, and will likely increase for many other materials.

Recycling energy is, by definition, much harder than recycling materials. But here too, many opportunities exist: in spite of all the excitement about recycling, most landfill waste in the US is waste paper. A vast untapped renewable fuel source literally going to waste. Ditto food waste and many other renewables.

"We have grown our global economy on the assumption that we'd always have abundant energy."
We have? Please explain why abundant energy is vital to economic growth.

"100 years ago, the EROI for a barrel of oil was 100 to 1... Today... some estimates put the EROI of oil at around 15:1."
I guess EROI is a good parameter - we just haven't quite worked out how to use it in a meaningful way. E.g. at what level does EROI make recovering a fuel unworkable? And if Prof. Wiseman at U. NO Everything determines that EROI for a given fuel is only 1.1, but Exxon wants to develop the fuel anyway (using their own money), should we stop them, or allow them to fail by themselves? What if Prof. Wiseman got something wrong? Seems like the free market trumps EROI, IMHO.

Comment
9 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 20, 2010

"We'll start off with a surprising tale of an undergraduate student who uncovered an alleged conspiracy at the International Energy Agency to hide the peak oil problem."
Let's assume for a moment Big Oil = Big Evil. Why would they want "to hide the peak oil problem"? They would stand to make terrific profits off a Peak Oil hysteria. Would they forgo profits today for even more profits tomorrow? That does not seem to be the way of corporate America…
"Energy expert and author Vaclav Smil gives us some historical context to the current energy transition. He'll argue that renewable energy advocates are being unrealistic in their assumptions that we can switch to renewables in a very short period of time."
Wise words. I just don't see why we need to switch "in a very short period of time." If the switch proceeds to slowly, at first, energy prices would rise. That would encourage conservation and investments into alternatives. Eventually that investment would make a difference. The longer it takes the bigger the opportunity. Nerve-wracking? Yes. But that's the way of the free market.
"Author and Lawyer Jeff Vail talks about his worry that the Renewables Gap is not being addressed by politicians…"
Oh @#$%&*! You're looking to politicians to offer a solution? Haven't been following the news out of Washington, DC for the last two decades or so, have you?
But let's assume for a moment that there were no such a thing as a lobbyist, and that ALL politicians worked extremely hard only in service of their constituents, occasionally even stooping to bipartisanship. What you have these noble public servants do?
If your answer involves skewing the energy markets, I'd suggest you reconsider: there is a reason we trust the messy and unpredictable (mostly) free market mechanism to set almost all prices: it works. Even the best efforts of the most intelligent and honest technocrat is guaranteed to make a mess of it: these things are just too complicated for anybody to figure out.

Comment
10 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 20, 2010

"Journalist and Financial Analyst Tom Konrad talks about why he's a technological optimist, but a social pessimist."

Finally, a valid concern. But again, the free market doesn't care about social issues. Once energy gets expensive, even Americans start to conserve, as 2008 proved. I'd much rather have entrepreneurs spend their own money to develop the next Big Fuel (and get stinking rich in the process) rather than have politicians spend my tax $$ on (more) underhanded subsidies to Big Ag, such as Corn Ethanol.

"And finally, Jack Oswald, CEO of the bio-ammonia company Syngest, outlines his scenario of future "Energy Abundance." He'll lament the lack of vision we've shown in solving our problems related to energy."

Lack of vision from the masses means more opportunities for future profits for guys like Jack. Their ignorance is his opportunity. That's the beauty of a free market.

"Unfortunately, for it to switch, it has to collapse first..."
Nope. A sustained increase in energy prices is all it will take. Provided we can keep those stupid politicians from making a bad situation worse…

"All political persuasions agree, building soil carbon is GOOD,in the long run, the final arbiter/accountancy/ measure of sustainability will be soil carbon content and the truth of proper land-management and Biochar systems will be self-evident. At an EROI of 9:1, a pretty sweet deal."

Soil is great, but we won't be starving for lack of soil. As the Israelis have showed, you can have very successful hydroponic agriculture using sterile sand for root support.

"This convergence of different technologies will end the Combustion age."

I very much doubt that the "Combustion age" is going anywhere. But then, like everyone else, I don't know the future. We'll see.

Comment
11 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 20, 2010

"The BOCU (bank, oil, car, utility) monopolistic control is by far the hardest obstacle to overcome."

I agree, the banks are a major problem, it seems there entire business model is based on deception. And yes, OPEC is a problem, but no US (or any other) politician has ever had the backbone to stand up to them. Sickening to see how presidents from both parties continue the unproud tradition of energy policy = begging Saudi Arabia for more oil. W holding King Abdullah's hand in Crawford, and all that.

I'm afraid I don't see the car monopoly, in spite of Uncle Sam's best efforts. The Dead-3 did their best to suck the last drop of profit from gas hogs. By now, even they are paying attention to small cars. Not sure that electric cars are ready for the market yet, but we'll know soon enough, won't we?

Utilities is one of the few places where the free market model doesn't work so well, as California found out to their cost. Even so, utilities don't have unlimited influence, as Pacific Gas and Electric's failed Prop 16 showed. So even there it is not all doom and gloom.

"At least 3 companies in California are already making a profit out of artificial petroleum from ocean algae. These processes are scalable and ocean algae are a limitless resource. In a very short time we should not need to drill or buy any more in-the-ground petroleum. The ocean algae source frees us from building up carbon in the air, it frees us from the threat of terrorism (the terrorists are only there because of our oil money), and it frees us from having a military budget greater than the sum of all the other military budgets in the world (the giant Pentagon budget is mostly to protect our oil sources), so it's a win-win-win proposition."

Silver bullet indeed! You have the name of AT LEAST three of these companies, JH? Because I've never heard of these technologies. Where are they located? You sure they are making profits, as opposed to promising how much profits they can make…

Comment
12 of 23

StephenLacey

August 20, 2010

Coenraad -- I appreciate the thoughts.

However, I recommend you take a listen to the podcast and not just base your comments on a very short description of these detailed conversations.

This is meant as a teaser to an audio production. If you take a listen, you might find that we address the numerous points that you bring up.

Comment
13 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 20, 2010

Thanks Stephen,
Just FWIW, I prefer to read as opposed to listen - maybe it's just me. OTOH it's a pretty good presentation, and a lot of effort, I imagine.

Seems like you implicitily assume that the Renewables Gap exist because we are going to replace liquid fuels and the ICE with something better. It is certainly possible: that's afterall the way the ICE replaced horses and oxen. But note the ICE could do so because it was that much cheaper than the older technologies - in that way it paid its own way. Likewise, in some great green tech wants to replace liquid fuels and the ICE, it should be able to pay its own way.

I see things playing out a little differently: Note how we are always told that Corn Ethanol infrastructure will some day be used for cellulosic, and are therefor worthy recipients of (even more) subsidies. It seems much more likely that we would find a way to run oil refineries (at least partially) on renewables. The much overhyped TDP/TCP process from CWT already achieved some of that. Pity they weren't honest about the system's limitations.

Which raises another point: I believe in 50 years we will be buying our renewable fuels from Exxon, Shell and COP (perhaps even BP). These companies have all the infrastructure (which is huge as some of your interviews underline) and should Peak Oil come to pass, they will have all the cash to buy promising technologies. The big refiner, Valero, is already buying ethanol refiners. Imagine rich US Big Oil, sitting on mountains of cash, and limited supplies. Think they might (eventually) invest in renewables? Think they might be able to tell a workable solution from a pretender? Surely more so than our elected representatives...

Bottom line: it'd wise to treat Big Oil as an ally, as opposed to the Great Satan...

Comment
14 of 23

william-fitch-22587

August 21, 2010

Hi CP:

... and welcome to the way to much text CP thread....

Line from me you quoted:
"Unfortunately, for it to switch, it has to collapse first..."

Attempted response:
"Nope. A sustained increase in energy prices is all it will take. Provided we can keep those stupid politicians from making a bad situation worse…"

"NOPE"!! WOW, I will tell you , you are spiffy dressed as a baseball team high hitter player and are up to bat. The only problem is that you are standing in the middle of a Soccer field. You may like to read but you need to work on your comprehension. You completely missed what I was saying.....

As for your, "Why would they hide peak oil?" Well, after the short hysteria quieted down, people by the numbers would start realizing and changing over to RE at an accelerated rate. It is only the realization of irrevocable loss that will cause people to change. As long as they believe there is plenty, they will continue to pursue it.

As for the rest of your comments, they illuminate as a presentation in theoretical Capitalism...

.....Bill

Comment
15 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 23, 2010

Thanks for your comments, Bill!
And congratulations for your ability to stick to the 2,000 character limit. Unfortunately you lost a lot of us dimwitted baseball players in the process. Spefically, I would be interested in any evidence, theoretical or otherwise, to support your statement that "it has to collapse first." Explain why that is different to your later statement that "It is only the realization of irrevocable loss that will cause people to change", without collapse this time...

Also, I am not blind to limits of capitalism, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the worst system, except for all the alternatives. For all its limitations, capitalism has this irritating ability to work better than other systems.

I look forward to reading what system you would replace (theoretical) capitalism with. Remember, type slowly, so we baseball players can follow...

Comment
16 of 23

william-fitch-22587

August 23, 2010

Hi:

Nature doesn't except excuses. "Its the best we have..." and other such associated remarks are really irrelevant.
As to what I would replace Capitalism with, I wouldn't. If you had read my first post, #1 comment, I did not say the problem was/is Capitalism.
As for evidence, just turn around and look at man's last 6000 years of history.
The most logical outcome of man in his current genetic makeup, based on current human Psychology and long term history, is that "HE" is condemned to cyclic process of civilization buildup and catastrophic collapse, the population in time running the same curve. As the technology increases along with population, the failures will be more severe.
So on that happy note, I will bow out of this thread....

.....Bill

Comment
17 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 23, 2010

"Nature doesn't except excuses."
OK, but even if Nature is god, is Nature the enemy? Isn't it Nature that got us where we are?

"Psychology and long term history, is that "HE" is condemned to cyclic process of civilization buildup and catastrophic collapse, the population in time running the same curve."
NOPE!

Let's look at the last 12,000 years of history, courtesy of Wikipedia(1): Seems that population grows almost monotonously, with few exceptions. The Black Death DID reduce the earth's population by ~20%, showing how costly the lack of medical technology can be.

Sure, civilizations do collapse, with catastrophic consequences for those involved. But he effect on population numbers are more nuanced, especially world wide.

As for failures becoming more severe that is utter hogwash. Failures are becoming less severe. If you look at WWII - about as severe an event as has been seen in the last several centuries - it had no visible effect on population growth.

So, the EVIDENCE suggests that population would continue to grow monotonously, as better technology increases the population that our planet can support. This trend was well established before oil became the fuel of choice. It will continue long after the oil age came to an end.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

Comment
18 of 23

john-dye-169531

August 23, 2010

Artificial petroleum from ocean algae as a silver bullet? Even if it was financially viable (a dubious assertion at best), full-scale deployment would seriously exacerbate the GHG problem...

Comment
19 of 23

coenraad-pretorius-176946

August 24, 2010

Thanks John,
Please explain how photosynthesis-based fuels can increase GHG.

I would propose that open ocean-based algal biofuels is the only biofuel system with the potential (i.e. scale) to replace oil. Not that it would be simple. But at least it would be possible.

Comment
20 of 23

JC-Solar

August 24, 2010

Buckminster Fuller compared the energy in oil to the energy in a car battery. Oil was good for starting civilization, but now that it's started we should be using a more practical energy to keep the car running.
The metfore may seem a bit mixed, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
Oil is a precious resources that should not be used to heat water and heat homes. We now have much better alternatives, and we also need sustainable jobs.... this is why we need renewable energy...

Comment
21 of 23

phil-manke-79191

August 24, 2010

The ROI on renewables is based on an estimate of hardware lifetime. Burning stuff has ongoing costs and pollution, even if from algae of biomass.

We sometimes tell people that solar power is 100% efficient. Everything you get is free.

Perhaps we can return to horses for transportation. Then we'd have power, fertilizer, and meat in the bargain. Wonder what the efficiency is for them?

I'm just saying that "payback" is an elusive phantom of dubious value if given too much importance or narrowed vision.

Comment
22 of 23

Anonymous

August 25, 2010

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/08/why-pennsylvania-needs-clean-energy-part-i-fracking-out-of-control#readercomments

Comment
23 of 23

JDM

September 1, 2010

This was an excellent topic and is one of the best overview's of this subject I have heard/read. Stephen, I am a long time listener to your podcasts and you do a fabulous job with these. keep up the great work!

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

NEW Smart Phone App

Stephen Lacey

About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »