> From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The reality is, efficiency is ALWAYS driven by money.
That's only true in the Church of Growth within which almost all
humans worship today.
I'd argue that what underlies money is always energy, and the
resources provided by energy. But the economists and bankers prefer to
work in a world of infinite energy.
> According to some opinions, it
> takes like 10 pounds of coal to mine one pound of coal.
I will assume you are engaging in hyperbole in order to make your
point, or that "some opinions" is something you overheard on a bus. I
know of no credible researcher who says that, and I spend considerable
time on the topic.
But what *is* true -- which belies the myth that money drives
efficiency -- is that as an energy resource becomes more dear, it
takes more and more energy to provide that resource, eventually
reaching the point of negative return, at which point NO amount of
efficiency is going to provide more of that energy source.
When oil shot out of the ground in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859,
you could harvest 100 barrels of oil at the equivalent energy cost of
just one barrel of oil. Today, the ratio is closer to 5:1.
Coal has followed a similar curve. Most of the highest quality
(anthracite) is now gone. If you demand anthracite for a particular
application, I'll bet it does indeed require ten units of energy to
get one unit of anthracite out. Perhaps that's the root of the "some
opinions" you've heard.
The world has moved on to bituminous coal (soft, or brown coal). It is
more plentiful, but dirtier, and has considerably less energy content
per weight or volume as anthracite. Many researchers believe bitumen
may be near its peak, and its price has gone way up, causing a
subsequent increase in the mining of lignite, which is little more
than peat, and has vastly less energy than anthracite.
So far, what you started with is true: Adam Smith waved his invisible
hand, and market forces worked, keeping energy available by increasing
cost. But look closely at something he never envisioned in a world of
less than a billion people: we are now steadily moving DOWN the energy
efficiency chain in our fuel use!
What is true of the anthracite-bitumen-lignite sequence has also
happened with oil. Light sweet crude is well over half gone, and the
difference is made up in high sulphur crude that requires more
processing. When that is half gone (which many claim is already true),
we begin synthesizing crude from "tar sands." The energy returned for
energy invested for tar sands is less than 3:1, but still a positive
balance, unlike ethanol, which many researchers claim takes more
energy to make than is in the resulting product.
To many on this list, this will seem like a religious discussion, a
matter of opinion and belief, rather than cold, hard, fact. That's
true! Because we all worship in the Church of Growth, and any argument
that growth cannot continue in a finite world is shouted down as
blasphemy.
I will read your cries of blasphemy with a grin, but I'm going to sit
on my hands and not reply to this thread. Contact me off-list if you
want more information, or start with Chris Martenson's excellent
"Crash Course:"
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
:::: Farmers don’t yet realize it, but rural areas have become no more
than colonies from which cities are sucking the wealth. -- Kamyar
Enshayan ::::
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op <http://www.EcoReality.org> ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|