Energy Real Talk: Our Titanic Hubris Is Not Exactly Renewable

As a species, we've done alright. Technologically speaking, we've achieved so much in the last couple of centuries. We've flown to the moon, invented the Internet, I mean, we've even created invisibility cloaks and cloned shit. But there is one part of science that, over time, we have just consistently sucked at, and that's energy. We are more or less still just burning stuff for almost all of our energy needs. Try to think outside the box just a little bit and what do we get? Nuclear disaster.

In a way, we are spoiled brats, living off some huge inheritance, that has, for the last 200 years allowed us to achieve much but at the same time has made as fat, sloppy, and lazy. Now, it's starting to run out — and it will run out — and we have no idea what to do. Worse, we're still in the denial phase. Even those brave enough to admit the truth latch onto whimsical hopes: science will save us!

Instead we need a sober analysis of our current predicament and our imminent future in a world of diminishing resources, and that is exactly what physicist and energy guy Tom Murphy provides in a recent interview with OilPrice.com. Murphy is an associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego and runs the blog, Do the Math.

Climate change for instance, he claims, is a bit of a red herring.

I see climate change as a serious threat to natural services and species survival, perhaps ultimately having a very negative impact on humanity. But resource depletion trumps climate change for me, because I think this has the potential to effect far more people on a far shorter timescale with far greater certainty. Our economic model is based on growth, setting us on a collision course with nature. When it becomes clear that growth cannot continue, the ramifications can be sudden and severe. So my focus is more on averting the chaos of economic/resource/agriculture/distribution collapse, which stands to wipe out much of what we have accomplished in the fossil fuel age. To the extent that climate change and resource limits are both served by a deliberate and aggressive transition away from fossil fuels, I see a natural alliance. Will it be enough to avert disaster (in climate or human welfare)? Who can know — but I vote that we try real hard.

We should also probably forget about having technology fix all of our problems.

I worry about the strength and pervasiveness of faith in science and technology to fix our problems. And I say this as a scientist who is no stranger to high-tech design and development. We deserve better than blind hope that someone somewhere will pull off a transformative energy miracle. Some things peak. We should acknowledge that once our inheritance is spent, we may not live like the kings we want to be. I can hope along with the rest of us that this isn’t true. But I don’t feel like gambling: I’m the type to cash out when I’m a bit ahead, rather than keep betting my purse that the next hand will hit paydirt. More concretely, I can say that most physicists I meet in departments around the country are not aware of peak oil and associated challenges. Hardly anyone I meet is working on the problem. No one (i.e., funding) has told us this is a real problem that deserves our full attention. And I sense that it would be political suicide to do so. So which technology do I think will save our bacon? Most ideas on the table provide electricity, which does not address our most critical need. As I said before, artificial photosynthesis hits the sweet spot, and batteries are tremendously important. But let’s also prepare a plan B that may be less about techno-fixes and more about behaviors and attitudes.

Indeed, Murphy believes we might never truly "conquer" our energy ails.

I think it is fallacious to think that humans will master the energy flow and resources even of Earth. Successful examples of long-term sustainable living tend to see people living as part of the energy/resource flow, but not as masters of it. We are only good at mastery in our fertile imaginations. The real world tends not to care what we can imagine. Titanic hubris. I would rather see humans try to live in equilibrium with natural services, rather than attempt foolhardy domination. Our attempts thus far are not very impressive: we’re failing to hold it all together even now.

Forget thorium, despite the public humiliation of Solyndra, Murphy's favorite alt source is still solar. Just don't get your hopes up or anything.

As cautious as I am about techno-giddiness, I do have the giggles for artificial photosynthesis. Combining universally available sunlight (in my own backyard) with a liquid fuel that can support personal and commercial transportation on land, sea, and air with minimal changes to infrastructure is too juicy for me to resist. More so than thorium breeders or even fusion, this is a real game-changer. The catch is that our finite periodic table may not avail itself to our wishes. Groups are now shaking the periodic table by its ankles, hoping that some new and unappreciated catalysts clank to the floor. I’m rooting for them, but at the same time advocate not relying on its realization.

And so what is the deal with our oil situation? It’s not pretty, that’s for sure.

The simple observation that a peak in global discovery in the 1960’s must be followed by a peak in production some decades later is unassailable. So we know the decline is coming, as most major oil-producing countries have experienced already. That part is easy, it’s the when that is always hard. The fact that the current petroleum production plateau has hardly budged through factor-of-three price fluctuations is very suggestive that no one has spare capacity at the ready. If we can maintain high prices without re-experiencing a spike and crash like we did in 2008, we might see sub-prime production come online fast enough to maintain the plateau. But A) this might not happen, and B) it’s not a resumption of production growth. So I would not at all be surprised if a decline makes itself clear by the end of this decade. I, would, on the other hand, be surprised to see a 5-percent increase of conventional petroleum production over recent (plateau) levels. But in the decline case, volatility, deliberate withholding, recession, unemployment, wars, etc. can stir in enough complexity to hide the physical truth from us for years. Will it be obvious to the world when we pass into the land of inexorable decline?

Read the full interview over at OilPrice.com.

• Market Theory Has Bad News About the Looming Oil Doomsday
• Is Renewable Energy a Myth? Yes, But There’s Still Hope