No Alternative
One way or another, fossil fuels will be the end of Western industrial society in its current, overarching form. If humans worldwide continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at Western emission levels, the global climate will change to the point of no human return. And if fossil fuels that create these gases cease to power industry at today’s levels, then humans will live in a world in which they must find other means to survive. However, the “alternative” means of energy production by which so many people are pinning their hopes also have their limits, according to a new report by two think tanks in California.
Industry To Die Without Conservation: Report
SANTA ROSA, Calif. — One way or another, fossil fuels will be the end of Western industrial society in its current, overarching form.
If humans worldwide continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at Western emission levels, the global climate will change to the point of no human return.
And if fossil fuels that create these gases cease to power industry at today’s levels, then humans will live in a world in which they must find other means to survive.
However, the “alternative” means of energy production by which so many people are pinning their hopes also have their limits, according to a new report by two think tanks in California.
The report “Searching for a Miracle: Net Energy Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society” concludes that there is no combination of non-carbon-based means of creating energy that can sustain the way of life Westernized industry fosters at present levels.
“This is very grim news, and demands vast, rapid adjustments by all parties, from governments to industries and even environmental organizations, that thus far are not clearly in the offing,” wrote Jerry Mander, founder of the International Forum on Globalisation, in the foreword to the report.
The only alternative is for local communities to do more with little resources and no expection for economic growth in the process, the report said.
The Method
The report — authored by Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute — details the limits of 18 possible energy production systems that include wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, even nuclear means of producing energy as well as others in a mix.
The method of analysis Heinberg employed is based on “full life cycle assessment” and “net energy ratios” to compare the ways industrial society might operate in the future.
In laymen’s terms, Heinberg calculated how much energy is produced by these production system in relation to how much energy is invested to sustain them through the course of their operations.
This Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) method was developed and its implementation for the purposes of this report is considered the first.
Heinberg also took into account these 18 systems’ impacts on the environment, society, and geopolitics, as well as “resource and materials supply, resource location, transportation, waste disposal issues, and others to create a full life cycle picture of each technology’s impacts.”
“Alas, as we will see the ‘net energy’ gain from all alternative systems… is far too small to begin to sustain industrial society at its present levels,” Mander explained.
The Problem
According to the report, the key problem facing the future of humanity’s energy production is two-fold: the dominant economic mindset is pro-growth, and the Earth has limited resources for human consumption.
This problem is coupled with the fact that 85 percent of the world’s current energy comes from three sources — oil, natural gas, and coal — all fossil fuels.
While the report does favor adapting its energy needs to sources from fossil fuels to wind and solar power energy production, these fuels are also limited in their scope for supporing heavy industry.
Truth is, none of the “alternative” or “renewable” means of producing energy can work without fossil fuels.
The report shows this to be true for two reasons: 1) the parts used for manufacturing solar cells and wind turbines also utilize oil and chemical products such as plastics and 2) their supplies are intermittent and remote.
The same goes for the mining of fuels; it takes oil-driven machines to extract coal and uranium ore from mines; there are no coal-burning or nuclear powered machines that do the same work.
In addition, these carbon-based and uranium fuels are becoming increasing harder to find due to humans depleting them.
The report maintained that the world’s oil production has already peaked as predicted in the 1960s, so that it will take more resources at greater expense to keep the current and “alternative” energy systems functioning in the future.
In reality, no technological solution can meet humanity’s current needs for energy in the long term.
“Technologies such as ‘carbon capture and sequestration’ and ‘4th generation’ nuclear power remain largely hypothetical and may never be deployed on a large scale, while the prospects for oil shale, tar sands, and shale gas have been overstated to varying degrees,” Heinberg wrote.
The Transition
Heinberg concluded that humans must manage the eventual collapse of this carbon-based system, which he foresees happening in “the coming decade.”
“Major adjustments will be required in industrial production and personal consumption; attention will need to be paid to stabilizing and reducing population levels over the long term,” he wrote.
His report outlines three basic transition scenarios for the world to remove itself from using fossil fuels: the American way, the European way, and current per-capita energy usage.
The assumptions for the scenarios are that the world population must max out at nine billion people, and the cost of solar panels is 50 cents per watt installed — “one tenth the current cost and less than the current cost of coal.”
At American energy standards, the total hypothetical cost of moving to a solar energy production system is $500 trillion, the report noted. At the European standard, cost is $150 trillion.
As for per capita, Heinberg said, “The range is very wide. If Americans were to reduce their energy use to the world average, this would require a contraction to less than one-fifth of current consumption levels, but this same standard would enable citizens of Bangladesh to increase their per capita energy consumption nine-fold.”
Heinberg admitted that the scenarios are simplistic and fail to account for sources of fuel already in existence as well as the costs to construct electric grids and transport the electricity.
He wrote that none of these scenarios seem likely unless energy prices drop dramatically and the global economy reaches a Western level of energy consumption that mandates such a huge investment in infrastructure.
The Conservation
In terms of policy, the report advocates for governments to immediately and rapidly support resource conservation and local, self-sufficient economies for essential needs like food and energy.
The goal basically is to reduce demand for resources, which is another way of saying that the days of economic growth is “no longer practical,” the report said.
Heinberg said that “this is not necessarily a negative prospect, as some research shows that, once basic human needs are met, high material consumption levels do not correlate with high quality of life.”
In practical terms, the reliance on certain transportation system, for example, will lessen, especially airplanes, cars, and trucks, since energy costs will skyrocket while use of mass transit like trains and buses might increase to pick up the slack.
“The question the world faces is no longer whether to reduce energy consumption, but how,” Heinberg wrote.
Heinberg noted that there is good news. People in the West have numerous examples from not only less wealthy populations but also their ancestors to live their lives using less energy and resources.
“A considerable literature exists on how people in recently affluent nations can reduce energy consumption while actually increasing levels of personal satisfaction and community resilience,” he wrote.
Still, time is “quickly dwindling,” he said.
The report published by the International Forum on Globalization was provided by the Post Carbon Institute.
INFO
Post Carbon Institute
The International Forum On Globalization
