“Oil is abiotic” What on a scale modern humans use it Margaritas, or are you being contentious, attention seeking even or maybe you also believe in fairies and monotheistic deities, or perhaps just plain stupid.
I've done many charts that illustrate your point. For example, both Jet fuel and Diesel production in the U.S. has not changed much in 20 years. You can scroll through them here: https://x.com/DepletionCurve
When you get too close to this, which you are (and I am becoming too) you forget to mention assumptions which the public believes but were disproved long ago.
For example, the original "peak oil" theory was based on the amount of new oil found to replace the oil extracted from existing wells. Hubbert pointed out that if you find less and less and you keep pulling out at a maximum rate eventually you hit a peak. I haven't seen/read a single oil analyst who believes we're going to discover a massive field like Ghadir. Yet I believe the public believes there are many places to look for oil and eventually they'll look and find. It's ALL accounted for.
As you point out, the question today is how much crappy oil can be recovered economically. We already know if we look around. Enough for the wealthy. Everyone else better get used to bicycles or walking ;)
Hi Jan. I admire anyone who takes a stand, whatever stand. I'd rather post on something other than X, but that's where most people in the energy industry hang out. However, I just set up that account a month ago so it's an experiment. I've never found a place where "good" people go. Even if I found them, do I want to preach to the choir? Also, I'm looking for feedback. I comment on The Honest Sorcerers pieces both here and on Medium (where I started reading him) and he never comments back--to anyone. Makes me wonder, which is better, getting shouted and blocked by Elon or ignored by 'B'? ;)
I've learned stuff from people on X. And I have had some fun conversations with Sal from What's Wrong with Shipping, and Robert King (Good Wife). In the end, baby and bathwater for me.
My connection to you on Medium is important to me! I hope you'll indulge me this other stuff!
He did specifically say energy, rather than manufacture. Likely there will be some 'hot spots' that maintain technological civilisation for a long time barring a nuclear war.
The above link is for another leftfield, loosely related article to such matters.
Yes I realise Jason Liegois (the original comment's poster) only mentioned energy, which is why I responded that "You can't manufacture a computer with pedal power", since simply solving the energy required to power (anything) is only part of any potential "solution", since it require energy to manufacture EVERYTHING in ALL supply chains. Failing to acknowledge such whole system inputs is to put it mildly, misleading BS.
While true, it should hopefully have been obvious that my original comment was very tongue-in-cheek, which if you'd watched the show in question you'd probably have guessed.
I thought the strong Matrix vibes would have given that away as well...
No, I don't think that AI's will "survive" off human pedal power ffs, lol, albeit it can be a very amusing thought experiment.
Oops sorry, my autism got my sense of humour tangled up with my passion for accurate analysis !! Yes watching thousands of slaves, sorry "green warriors" pedalling to keep an AI going would be a very funny sight indeed ;-) !
With regard to your statement about finding ways to “suck out the last drops of existing reserves,” I suggest reading the Science and Environmental Health Network’s report on Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide.
A large proportion of remaining oil in place is not in untapped oil fields but stuck in rock pores in existing fields and in the residential oil zones (ROZ) in deeper source rock. This oil can be extracted via heat or solvents/ surfactants. Heat from natural gas is too expensive and the amount of solvents needed at scale is massive.
Enter the U.S. oil industry’s current efforts to expand use of CO2 EOR, which in a supercritical form is an excellent solvent. The industry developed this tech in the 1970, but due to costs it has never produced more than 2-3% of US extracted oil. Industry reports identify two barriers to expansion: (1) limited availability of CO2 supplies, as geologic CO2 sources are limited and fully committed to existing CO2 EOR operations in western Texas and the Gulf Coast, and ; and (2) the cost of anthropogenic CO2. To exploit remaining oil in place and ROZ, the industry would need massive amounts of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, but carbon capture is too expensive, otherwise the industry would have been capturing CO2 for decades. So, public subsidies are needed to help pay for the costs of capturing CO2.
But, how to rationalize public subsidies for carbon capture? Ah yes, to mitigate climate change. In the U.S. the public subsidy mechanism is the 45Q tax credit that currently grants tax credits of $60/MT for CO2 used in EOR.
Now, the U.S. oil industry is lobbying hard for continuation and an increase in the U.S. 45Q tax credit. The 45Q tax credit is one of the few Biden “clean energy” tax credits supported by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, and not for climate change mitigation purposes.
My point is that if the oil industry needs massive public subsidies to extract this remaining oil, isn’t this an admission that the industry knows it is becoming uneconomic?
An excellent summary. How are we, as (non-wealthy) individuals going to be living in a world like that, or even in a world half that bad in half the time? When stuff is unaffordable it doesn’t get purchased. When stuff doesn’t get purchased it stops being made. A lot of making, transporting, selling, and servicing infrastructure (and jobs) will go away.
We’ll have to get back to basics. Really basic basics. Locally grown by individuals. Locally made by individuals. Local services done by individuals. We need to form local networks. People we know. Friends we can trust. IRL friends we can cooperate with on local projects, each contributing our individual talents.
Online has had its chance. Hasn’t worked out. Time to make friends on purpose. Start with notices on library, store, and bank bulletin boards. We need to evolve organically now.
A hundred years ago, if we wanted to network, we would stand up from our chair on the porch, and walk down the street until we talked to our neighbour. That was the extent of networking, and that act comprised 100% of it.
Then came radio and telephones, and then television. All of these captured time away from being in a local mindset, and by marketing companies far far away. Later, we got the internet, and then social media. At this point, our thoughts were no longer our own, and any conversation about local matters, could to influenced or outright subverted by a message which might be in-congruent with a desirable outcome.
At this point in time, we have nearly lost our ability to trust each other, because we have allowed remote influence to capture the narrative.
I agree with you. We need to "re-localize" if we want to have any hope of enjoying our futures.
Humans were not sustainable back then either. In fact, the moment our ancestors rose on two, our fate was sealed. In the deep past, the pace of the collateral damage was slow and life seemed sustainable. But eventually, every human culture hit its limit, ushering the way to a new, more eco-exploitive lifestyle. That process has become faster with time; so much so, that the current iteration will have taken 150-200 years to meet its demise.
Let's face it: some 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct.
As we will be, someday.
But there was a breaking point, at which some 300,000 years of mostly steady-state existence suddenly accelerated. Many anthropologists peg that as the advent of grain-based agriculture.
Prior to that event, humans lived, quite literally, hand-to-mouth. If you found a treasure trove of food, you shared it, because it would decay or be scavenged if your tribe could not use it.
But grain could be stored almost indefinitely. That lead to hoarding and withholding, and subsequent social stratification and hierarchy. Granary receipts on clay tablets were arguably the first form of money, and thus, ownership and capitalism.
Some 7,000 years ago, grain agriculture simultaneously (on evolutionary time-scales) arose in Mesopotamia (wheat), the Orient (rice), and Mesoamerica (corn). These civilizations are known by their elaborate monuments to their leaders and gods.
And yet, non-grain food-based civilizations also appeared that lacked the grandiose monuments of hierarchy. About the same time, a hazelnut-based civilization arose in what is now coastal British Columbia.
Without refrigeration, hazelnuts go rancid in less than a year. They could not be hoarded and withheld.
Here’s my point again—that was never the case. Ever so slowly, as Man became more skillful in hunting, inventing the spear, javelin and bow along the way, he exhausted the once abundant pray. Nomadic life style was a necessity—just observe the old ways of the Aborigines. Yet, as humanity increased in numbers, even that wasn’t sufficient. The old lifestyle had to be abandoned, and a gradual switch to agriculture took place. Our ways have never been sustainable.
We’re beyond networking. Walking around the neighborhood doesn’t work anymore, because we lost the picture of who’s living in what house. No one knows where aunt Sally lives with all her herbal meds. So it’s time to put feet on the ground, physical notices on physical boards, and clan up.
Great article THS, just reinforces the very things I question in the realm of FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF’s), but it’s not unique in the Doomistphere. However it still leaves the question of how humanity will behave as it becomes increasingly evident that there’s no real replacement for FFFF’s. I’ve come across two books that give a peek into what the future might hold, the first is a book suitable for teenagers, by Suzanne Weyn “Empty“. Set in the not too distant future …fossils fuels are running out. No gas. No oil. Which means no driving. No heat. Supermarkets are empty…”.
The second book is adult reading it’s concerningly realistic and frightening, and once read haunting, by Kurt Dahl “An American Famine - (subtitle) A Rosetta Stone for the coming collapse”, combines the realism of our most knowledgeable pundits on sustainability along with a vivid fictional descent into chaos and anarchy. It’s opening quotation by Thomas Hobbes “Hell is the truth seen too late” could well reflect what’s happening today.
And anyone that wants to question the effects of transportation stopping should read (nonfiction) Alice J. Friedemann’s “When Trucks Stop Running - (subtitle) Energy and the Future of Transportation”🤔
Jan, I purchased my copy of Kurt Dahl’s book “An American Famine” from Amazon, after reading I obtained a copy of “The Eden Proposition” it’s an interesting book, but nowhere near as good as “An American Famine” which in my opinion is in a league of it’s own.
While Amazon is a primary source, you can also buy the book “An American Famine” from these other retailers. Check each platform for availability, pricing, and shipping details. If you prefer eBooks, platforms like Google Play Books or other eBook stores might also carry it. And of course there’s the secondhand market.
I also follow Dr. Morgan, and his prediction that most people will not be able to afford many discretionary products and services.
One of my family had a good job before the Great Depression. He then became unemployed; things were bad for him and his family. Finally, he got a job working in the finance department of a bakery. He was pleased to get the job because he said that people will always spend money on bread, hence he was quite secure. He was right ― that was during the 1930s, and he stayed with that company until he retired.
At the other end of the spectrum, I do not see how the airline industry can continue, except for the very wealthy and the military. Sustainable Aviation Fuels are manufactured from crops, so they are not really sustainable. My guess is that tourist flights will be one of the first non-discretionary activities to decline.
Going back to my family story, in those days even moderately prosperous people rarely owned a car, and airplane flights were an adventure. The idea of having significant non-discretionary money is quite recent.
Gail Tverberg's blog has many useful articles which have led me to conclude that at some point (not too far away) we are going to experience a rather sharp contraction in the real economy which the mathematical games employed by those working within the financialised "commanding heights" of the global economy will not be able to paper over. There will be social unrest, a big increase in crime etc. It will be worse in the more "advanced" economies of the west. It is better to "look poorer" that you are on paper - e,g. keep your 10 year old car going rather than upgrade to a new one, have an electric battery powered cargo bike as your second vehicle instead of a car. Even if you are out of debt, replace your financial assets with harder, more material assets. Financial assets are just numbers on a computer screen. Hard assets will depreciate over time. But financial assets could eventually evaporate overnight! This is very important to think about once you are a semi-retired person with a gradually diminishing real income stream.
It exceeded 10% electrification around 2000, and is now touching 30%. Other countries will follow rapidly - we have only just started with electric vehicles (to replace much of the oil we use) and heat pumps (to replace much of the gas we use). The only area we (in Europe mainly) have been busy with is replacing coal with renewables.
"Nevertheless, the public was successfully convinced that one day we will no longer need oil thanks to a rapid deployment of “renewables” and electric vehicles."
I'm not sure when that was meant to happen, but beware of exponential growth. Especially of solar. 600GW of solar PV was deployed in 2024. How long before we reach 1TW.
And if we deploy 1TW per year over a decade, that provides more useful energy per year than all the oil we consume currently. Or all the gas. Or all the coal.
Of course supply and demand comes into it. Lower demand will lead to lower prices which will boost demand. But lower prices at the well won't do much to stop the switch to EVs.
In 2050, what exactly will fossil fuels be used for? Plastics, probably. Maybe air travel. And perhaps barbeques.
Electricity is good for transport and devices. Only diesel and coal can run an economy. You need the later for mining durable metals and smelting. Electricity is only a component of the required energy profile needed.
Diesel and coal are optional. Electricity is essential - without it, nothing works.
Certainly mining and smelting can be done with electricity. Fortescue is making progress in electrifying their mining. It would be nice to also avoid using hydrogen, and move to direct electrolysis for metals (as we do already with aluminium).
You will have an uphill battle with selling your conjecture; especially on this website. Aluminium is the only widely used metal that electricity is essential for smelting. The rest require diesel to extricate, and high heat through metallurgical coal to smelt. We are running out of both, at least in the quantities needed to support Western lifestyles.
It would be wonderful if we could run our civilisation purely on electricity. I would vote for it, if it were that easy. Unfortunately, it is not even close to being reality.
Batteries just do not hold enough energy in a light enough container. When your energy density is 1/50th that of diesel, the challenges of having a useful mechanism ruin the economics. If we could get to 1/5, that might be viable for at least some, but not all, of a replacement energy. But, there is nothing on the horizon in that regard.
Again, I want the same thing you do. OurFiniteWorld and EnergySkeptic are linked frequently on this site. They are great resources for rational thinking.
We always need to break down the problems. Mining with electric vehicles seems quite easy compared to EVs that need to drive hundreds of km. Indeed, if we were designing mining from scratch, without 100 years of diesel dependence, we would go for electricity. As with buses.
Metals reduction is harder. I'm not convinced hydrogen is the answer. But consider iron - the majority comes from scrap, where we use electric arc furnaces already. Using electricity for electrolysis should be easy.
Of course, there is so much to do. Often we miss what should be easy quick wins - e.g. electric tractors should be way easier than electric cars.
Batteries may have 1/50th the energy density of diesel, but that is 1/12th the useful energy. Could we do better? Maybe, but it is more important to do cheaper.
Batteries work well for overnight operation. The real problem is in the far north, aka Europe, where December solar is only 1/5th of summer solar, and batteries aren't up to dealing with wind turbine lulls.
All of these things are interesting to talk about.
1) Hydrogen requires energy to create, and looses a lot in hydrolysis, and then compression into a liquid (same as methane). It also needs to be burned, which is another loss. Storage and safety are huge problems. Hydrogen just isnt useful
2) Lithium batteries are extremely dangerous, and are not stable enough for use in our society. See StachD Training on Youtube for that rabbit hole.
3) Electricity works well for cruising. Trains and cars are good examples of low energy use, that electricity pairs nicely with. Trucks... are hopeless. Electricity just doesnt have the engine efficiency that diesel does.
It seems like a good idea, until the math is done. The electricity required to move a truck and many tonnes or ore to the top of a mine, at -30c, is astonishing. The electricity needed to achieve this would require a nuclear power plant near the mine if you have more than 2 trucks running. That not the way mines work.
Keep in mind, electricity is produced by heat, wind or flowing water. Its methane or nuclear. All the infrastructure for all of that requires.... diesel and loads of it. Electricity can only be a small percentage of the required energy profile.
1. Broadly agree. Hydrogen will be needed in some niches, but best avoided where possible. Great way to pretend to do something though.
2. Lithium batteries are quite a bit safer than petroleum products, and unlike them, are getting safer. Combustion engines will always have a risk of combustion.
3. Electric engines are >90% efficient. Batteries were a weak point, but now battery beats combustion engine for anything and everything over a short range. That is typically up to 4 hours for trucks. Mining trucks are perfect for electrification because:
a. Low speeds, so no wind resistance, meaning regenerative braking is more useful.
b. Often difficult and hilly terrain, meaning regenerative braking is even more useful.
c. High torque and variable power, perfect for electric motors.
d. Significant ancillary power required, often whilst stationary, which is not ideal for combustion engines.
Or we could just not continue to live in a way that is literally raping the planet?
What a wonderful thought that.
Also, China is powered by dirty coal.
Why people keep brining up coal burning China as an example of a "climate hero" is beyond me.
The exponential growth of physical technologies made with finite resources dug up from the ground powered with machines that are also powered by finite resources dug up from the ground?
Is that 'According to Grok' ?
I think you've been drinking too much of your namesake.
“Oil is abiotic” What on a scale modern humans use it Margaritas, or are you being contentious, attention seeking even or maybe you also believe in fairies and monotheistic deities, or perhaps just plain stupid.
“Sprouts - Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity”: https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc?si=dXlq_Oo3vA2Zf9ZF 🤔
“Too many people”? This is whataboutism Margaritas, and who’s “them”?🤔
Please don’t feed the troll.
Thanks for the reminder. Blocked the troll.
I've done many charts that illustrate your point. For example, both Jet fuel and Diesel production in the U.S. has not changed much in 20 years. You can scroll through them here: https://x.com/DepletionCurve
When you get too close to this, which you are (and I am becoming too) you forget to mention assumptions which the public believes but were disproved long ago.
For example, the original "peak oil" theory was based on the amount of new oil found to replace the oil extracted from existing wells. Hubbert pointed out that if you find less and less and you keep pulling out at a maximum rate eventually you hit a peak. I haven't seen/read a single oil analyst who believes we're going to discover a massive field like Ghadir. Yet I believe the public believes there are many places to look for oil and eventually they'll look and find. It's ALL accounted for.
As you point out, the question today is how much crappy oil can be recovered economically. We already know if we look around. Enough for the wealthy. Everyone else better get used to bicycles or walking ;)
Please try to use a host that doesn't require a sign-in to view your information.
I do not use X. Or Instagram, WhatsApp, or FacePlant.
Consider it your duty to starve the beast!
Hi Jan. I admire anyone who takes a stand, whatever stand. I'd rather post on something other than X, but that's where most people in the energy industry hang out. However, I just set up that account a month ago so it's an experiment. I've never found a place where "good" people go. Even if I found them, do I want to preach to the choir? Also, I'm looking for feedback. I comment on The Honest Sorcerers pieces both here and on Medium (where I started reading him) and he never comments back--to anyone. Makes me wonder, which is better, getting shouted and blocked by Elon or ignored by 'B'? ;)
I've learned stuff from people on X. And I have had some fun conversations with Sal from What's Wrong with Shipping, and Robert King (Good Wife). In the end, baby and bathwater for me.
My connection to you on Medium is important to me! I hope you'll indulge me this other stuff!
If energy is going to be as scarce as you say, it doesn’t seem like our AI use would be sustainable.
AI's can live off human pedal power, like in Black Mirror 'Fifteen Million Merits' https://mubi.com/en/films/black-mirror-fifteen-million-merits/trailer
You can't manufacture a computer with pedal power - so AI is axiomatically not sustainable.
https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/value-is-energy
He did specifically say energy, rather than manufacture. Likely there will be some 'hot spots' that maintain technological civilisation for a long time barring a nuclear war.
The above link is for another leftfield, loosely related article to such matters.
Yes I realise Jason Liegois (the original comment's poster) only mentioned energy, which is why I responded that "You can't manufacture a computer with pedal power", since simply solving the energy required to power (anything) is only part of any potential "solution", since it require energy to manufacture EVERYTHING in ALL supply chains. Failing to acknowledge such whole system inputs is to put it mildly, misleading BS.
While true, it should hopefully have been obvious that my original comment was very tongue-in-cheek, which if you'd watched the show in question you'd probably have guessed.
I thought the strong Matrix vibes would have given that away as well...
No, I don't think that AI's will "survive" off human pedal power ffs, lol, albeit it can be a very amusing thought experiment.
Oops sorry, my autism got my sense of humour tangled up with my passion for accurate analysis !! Yes watching thousands of slaves, sorry "green warriors" pedalling to keep an AI going would be a very funny sight indeed ;-) !
Nothing about modernity is sustainable.
B actually has an article about this exact topic:
https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/ai-has-a-survival-dilemma-8ca5db46d5e0
With regard to your statement about finding ways to “suck out the last drops of existing reserves,” I suggest reading the Science and Environmental Health Network’s report on Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide.
A large proportion of remaining oil in place is not in untapped oil fields but stuck in rock pores in existing fields and in the residential oil zones (ROZ) in deeper source rock. This oil can be extracted via heat or solvents/ surfactants. Heat from natural gas is too expensive and the amount of solvents needed at scale is massive.
Enter the U.S. oil industry’s current efforts to expand use of CO2 EOR, which in a supercritical form is an excellent solvent. The industry developed this tech in the 1970, but due to costs it has never produced more than 2-3% of US extracted oil. Industry reports identify two barriers to expansion: (1) limited availability of CO2 supplies, as geologic CO2 sources are limited and fully committed to existing CO2 EOR operations in western Texas and the Gulf Coast, and ; and (2) the cost of anthropogenic CO2. To exploit remaining oil in place and ROZ, the industry would need massive amounts of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, but carbon capture is too expensive, otherwise the industry would have been capturing CO2 for decades. So, public subsidies are needed to help pay for the costs of capturing CO2.
But, how to rationalize public subsidies for carbon capture? Ah yes, to mitigate climate change. In the U.S. the public subsidy mechanism is the 45Q tax credit that currently grants tax credits of $60/MT for CO2 used in EOR.
Now, the U.S. oil industry is lobbying hard for continuation and an increase in the U.S. 45Q tax credit. The 45Q tax credit is one of the few Biden “clean energy” tax credits supported by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, and not for climate change mitigation purposes.
My point is that if the oil industry needs massive public subsidies to extract this remaining oil, isn’t this an admission that the industry knows it is becoming uneconomic?
I think you've missed the point of this article.
An excellent summary. How are we, as (non-wealthy) individuals going to be living in a world like that, or even in a world half that bad in half the time? When stuff is unaffordable it doesn’t get purchased. When stuff doesn’t get purchased it stops being made. A lot of making, transporting, selling, and servicing infrastructure (and jobs) will go away.
We’ll have to get back to basics. Really basic basics. Locally grown by individuals. Locally made by individuals. Local services done by individuals. We need to form local networks. People we know. Friends we can trust. IRL friends we can cooperate with on local projects, each contributing our individual talents.
Online has had its chance. Hasn’t worked out. Time to make friends on purpose. Start with notices on library, store, and bank bulletin boards. We need to evolve organically now.
A hundred years ago, if we wanted to network, we would stand up from our chair on the porch, and walk down the street until we talked to our neighbour. That was the extent of networking, and that act comprised 100% of it.
Then came radio and telephones, and then television. All of these captured time away from being in a local mindset, and by marketing companies far far away. Later, we got the internet, and then social media. At this point, our thoughts were no longer our own, and any conversation about local matters, could to influenced or outright subverted by a message which might be in-congruent with a desirable outcome.
At this point in time, we have nearly lost our ability to trust each other, because we have allowed remote influence to capture the narrative.
I agree with you. We need to "re-localize" if we want to have any hope of enjoying our futures.
Dunbar's Number rules.
The last time humans were sustainable, they were in clans, tribes, and villages of no more than about 150 individuals.
A reversion to the mean is inevitable.
Local Realtime
Humans were not sustainable back then either. In fact, the moment our ancestors rose on two, our fate was sealed. In the deep past, the pace of the collateral damage was slow and life seemed sustainable. But eventually, every human culture hit its limit, ushering the way to a new, more eco-exploitive lifestyle. That process has become faster with time; so much so, that the current iteration will have taken 150-200 years to meet its demise.
Let's face it: some 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct.
As we will be, someday.
But there was a breaking point, at which some 300,000 years of mostly steady-state existence suddenly accelerated. Many anthropologists peg that as the advent of grain-based agriculture.
Prior to that event, humans lived, quite literally, hand-to-mouth. If you found a treasure trove of food, you shared it, because it would decay or be scavenged if your tribe could not use it.
But grain could be stored almost indefinitely. That lead to hoarding and withholding, and subsequent social stratification and hierarchy. Granary receipts on clay tablets were arguably the first form of money, and thus, ownership and capitalism.
Some 7,000 years ago, grain agriculture simultaneously (on evolutionary time-scales) arose in Mesopotamia (wheat), the Orient (rice), and Mesoamerica (corn). These civilizations are known by their elaborate monuments to their leaders and gods.
And yet, non-grain food-based civilizations also appeared that lacked the grandiose monuments of hierarchy. About the same time, a hazelnut-based civilization arose in what is now coastal British Columbia.
Without refrigeration, hazelnuts go rancid in less than a year. They could not be hoarded and withheld.
“Steady-state existence”
Here’s my point again—that was never the case. Ever so slowly, as Man became more skillful in hunting, inventing the spear, javelin and bow along the way, he exhausted the once abundant pray. Nomadic life style was a necessity—just observe the old ways of the Aborigines. Yet, as humanity increased in numbers, even that wasn’t sufficient. The old lifestyle had to be abandoned, and a gradual switch to agriculture took place. Our ways have never been sustainable.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/1024px-Population_curve.svg.png
'nuff said.
We’re beyond networking. Walking around the neighborhood doesn’t work anymore, because we lost the picture of who’s living in what house. No one knows where aunt Sally lives with all her herbal meds. So it’s time to put feet on the ground, physical notices on physical boards, and clan up.
This is imminent
Collapse and Cannibalism
8+ billion vicious starving humans and the orgy of violence that will ensue
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/collapse-and-cannibalism
First 10 minutes of Century of Self ... Freud mentions that he despised and feared the dangerous human herd... he'd have agreed with this https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/humans-barnyard-animals-and-circus
America "and its allies". "Allies": lol.
Great article THS, just reinforces the very things I question in the realm of FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF’s), but it’s not unique in the Doomistphere. However it still leaves the question of how humanity will behave as it becomes increasingly evident that there’s no real replacement for FFFF’s. I’ve come across two books that give a peek into what the future might hold, the first is a book suitable for teenagers, by Suzanne Weyn “Empty“. Set in the not too distant future …fossils fuels are running out. No gas. No oil. Which means no driving. No heat. Supermarkets are empty…”.
The second book is adult reading it’s concerningly realistic and frightening, and once read haunting, by Kurt Dahl “An American Famine - (subtitle) A Rosetta Stone for the coming collapse”, combines the realism of our most knowledgeable pundits on sustainability along with a vivid fictional descent into chaos and anarchy. It’s opening quotation by Thomas Hobbes “Hell is the truth seen too late” could well reflect what’s happening today.
And anyone that wants to question the effects of transportation stopping should read (nonfiction) Alice J. Friedemann’s “When Trucks Stop Running - (subtitle) Energy and the Future of Transportation”🤔
Where do you find "An American Famine"?
All I can find by Kurt Dahl is "The Eden Proposition".
Jan, I purchased my copy of Kurt Dahl’s book “An American Famine” from Amazon, after reading I obtained a copy of “The Eden Proposition” it’s an interesting book, but nowhere near as good as “An American Famine” which in my opinion is in a league of it’s own.
While Amazon is a primary source, you can also buy the book “An American Famine” from these other retailers. Check each platform for availability, pricing, and shipping details. If you prefer eBooks, platforms like Google Play Books or other eBook stores might also carry it. And of course there’s the secondhand market.
Amazon: The book is available in Kindle eBook format and as a paperback. https://www.amazon.com/American-Famine-Rosetta-coming-collapse-ebook/dp/B00HKQ8522 https://www.amazon.com/Kurt-Dahl/e/B002BLL7IK?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
AbeBooks: Provides options for purchasing the book, likely in paperback format. https://www.abebooks.com/9798575112570/American-Famine-Rosetta-Stone-coming/plp
Alibris: Another platform where the book is available for purchase. https://www.alibris.com/An-American-Famine-A-Rosetta-Stone-for-the-coming-collapse-Kurt-Dahl/book/48885215
ThriftBooks: Offers new and used copies of the paperback. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/kurt-dahl/439826/
Bookshop.org https://bookshop.org/p/books/an-american-famine-a-rosetta-stone-for-the-coming-collapse-kurt-dahl/15781831
Hope that helps🤔
I also follow Dr. Morgan, and his prediction that most people will not be able to afford many discretionary products and services.
One of my family had a good job before the Great Depression. He then became unemployed; things were bad for him and his family. Finally, he got a job working in the finance department of a bakery. He was pleased to get the job because he said that people will always spend money on bread, hence he was quite secure. He was right ― that was during the 1930s, and he stayed with that company until he retired.
At the other end of the spectrum, I do not see how the airline industry can continue, except for the very wealthy and the military. Sustainable Aviation Fuels are manufactured from crops, so they are not really sustainable. My guess is that tourist flights will be one of the first non-discretionary activities to decline.
Going back to my family story, in those days even moderately prosperous people rarely owned a car, and airplane flights were an adventure. The idea of having significant non-discretionary money is quite recent.
See UK FIRES Absolute Zero short timeline for shipping, airline travel, textiles and private vehicles.
Carbon planets like the moon Titan. Where did they get the gas and oil from?
Along with those pesky oilygarches.
Gail Tverberg's blog has many useful articles which have led me to conclude that at some point (not too far away) we are going to experience a rather sharp contraction in the real economy which the mathematical games employed by those working within the financialised "commanding heights" of the global economy will not be able to paper over. There will be social unrest, a big increase in crime etc. It will be worse in the more "advanced" economies of the west. It is better to "look poorer" that you are on paper - e,g. keep your 10 year old car going rather than upgrade to a new one, have an electric battery powered cargo bike as your second vehicle instead of a car. Even if you are out of debt, replace your financial assets with harder, more material assets. Financial assets are just numbers on a computer screen. Hard assets will depreciate over time. But financial assets could eventually evaporate overnight! This is very important to think about once you are a semi-retired person with a gradually diminishing real income stream.
The article is based on a soon to be false premise:
"There are thousand good technical reasons why electricity’s share of world energy consumption is between 10 and 15% for decades now…"
Yet look at China,
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/05/26/china-is-the-worlds-first-electrostate/
It exceeded 10% electrification around 2000, and is now touching 30%. Other countries will follow rapidly - we have only just started with electric vehicles (to replace much of the oil we use) and heat pumps (to replace much of the gas we use). The only area we (in Europe mainly) have been busy with is replacing coal with renewables.
"Nevertheless, the public was successfully convinced that one day we will no longer need oil thanks to a rapid deployment of “renewables” and electric vehicles."
I'm not sure when that was meant to happen, but beware of exponential growth. Especially of solar. 600GW of solar PV was deployed in 2024. How long before we reach 1TW.
And if we deploy 1TW per year over a decade, that provides more useful energy per year than all the oil we consume currently. Or all the gas. Or all the coal.
Of course supply and demand comes into it. Lower demand will lead to lower prices which will boost demand. But lower prices at the well won't do much to stop the switch to EVs.
In 2050, what exactly will fossil fuels be used for? Plastics, probably. Maybe air travel. And perhaps barbeques.
Electricity is good for transport and devices. Only diesel and coal can run an economy. You need the later for mining durable metals and smelting. Electricity is only a component of the required energy profile needed.
Diesel and coal are optional. Electricity is essential - without it, nothing works.
Certainly mining and smelting can be done with electricity. Fortescue is making progress in electrifying their mining. It would be nice to also avoid using hydrogen, and move to direct electrolysis for metals (as we do already with aluminium).
You will have an uphill battle with selling your conjecture; especially on this website. Aluminium is the only widely used metal that electricity is essential for smelting. The rest require diesel to extricate, and high heat through metallurgical coal to smelt. We are running out of both, at least in the quantities needed to support Western lifestyles.
It would be wonderful if we could run our civilisation purely on electricity. I would vote for it, if it were that easy. Unfortunately, it is not even close to being reality.
Batteries just do not hold enough energy in a light enough container. When your energy density is 1/50th that of diesel, the challenges of having a useful mechanism ruin the economics. If we could get to 1/5, that might be viable for at least some, but not all, of a replacement energy. But, there is nothing on the horizon in that regard.
Again, I want the same thing you do. OurFiniteWorld and EnergySkeptic are linked frequently on this site. They are great resources for rational thinking.
I guess I'm just more optimistic :)
We always need to break down the problems. Mining with electric vehicles seems quite easy compared to EVs that need to drive hundreds of km. Indeed, if we were designing mining from scratch, without 100 years of diesel dependence, we would go for electricity. As with buses.
Metals reduction is harder. I'm not convinced hydrogen is the answer. But consider iron - the majority comes from scrap, where we use electric arc furnaces already. Using electricity for electrolysis should be easy.
Of course, there is so much to do. Often we miss what should be easy quick wins - e.g. electric tractors should be way easier than electric cars.
Batteries may have 1/50th the energy density of diesel, but that is 1/12th the useful energy. Could we do better? Maybe, but it is more important to do cheaper.
Batteries work well for overnight operation. The real problem is in the far north, aka Europe, where December solar is only 1/5th of summer solar, and batteries aren't up to dealing with wind turbine lulls.
All of these things are interesting to talk about.
1) Hydrogen requires energy to create, and looses a lot in hydrolysis, and then compression into a liquid (same as methane). It also needs to be burned, which is another loss. Storage and safety are huge problems. Hydrogen just isnt useful
2) Lithium batteries are extremely dangerous, and are not stable enough for use in our society. See StachD Training on Youtube for that rabbit hole.
3) Electricity works well for cruising. Trains and cars are good examples of low energy use, that electricity pairs nicely with. Trucks... are hopeless. Electricity just doesnt have the engine efficiency that diesel does.
For example, someone posted this on OFW recently:
https://electrek.co/2025/06/01/240-ton-hitachi-abb-electric-haul-truck-is-revolutionizing-japanese-mining/
It seems like a good idea, until the math is done. The electricity required to move a truck and many tonnes or ore to the top of a mine, at -30c, is astonishing. The electricity needed to achieve this would require a nuclear power plant near the mine if you have more than 2 trucks running. That not the way mines work.
Keep in mind, electricity is produced by heat, wind or flowing water. Its methane or nuclear. All the infrastructure for all of that requires.... diesel and loads of it. Electricity can only be a small percentage of the required energy profile.
Yes, interesting, though:
1. Broadly agree. Hydrogen will be needed in some niches, but best avoided where possible. Great way to pretend to do something though.
2. Lithium batteries are quite a bit safer than petroleum products, and unlike them, are getting safer. Combustion engines will always have a risk of combustion.
3. Electric engines are >90% efficient. Batteries were a weak point, but now battery beats combustion engine for anything and everything over a short range. That is typically up to 4 hours for trucks. Mining trucks are perfect for electrification because:
a. Low speeds, so no wind resistance, meaning regenerative braking is more useful.
b. Often difficult and hilly terrain, meaning regenerative braking is even more useful.
c. High torque and variable power, perfect for electric motors.
d. Significant ancillary power required, often whilst stationary, which is not ideal for combustion engines.
Or we could just not continue to live in a way that is literally raping the planet?
What a wonderful thought that.
Also, China is powered by dirty coal.
Why people keep brining up coal burning China as an example of a "climate hero" is beyond me.
The exponential growth of physical technologies made with finite resources dug up from the ground powered with machines that are also powered by finite resources dug up from the ground?
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/
Civilization can not be run on electricity alone.
Literally.
Fossil fuel inputs are a physical and chemical necessity for the production of the key components of modern civilization.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/we-are-not-mining-with-renewable?utm_source=publication-search
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-energy-transition-story-has-become?utm_source=publication-search
Diesel and coal are not optional. They are essential inputs to modern civilization.
Civilization is a fossil fuel based lifestyle.
Electricity supplements that.
It can not replace it.
This post spurred this one:
https://wadefrazier.substack.com/p/the-end-of-oil-is-coming-fast
There is plenty of oil reserves worlwide