free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 186. THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE PEAK OIL TUNNEL

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

186. THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE PEAK OIL TUNNEL

As previously pointed out, the doomer concept of a permanent powerdown (and mass die-off) is a rather hard sell to the peak oil uninitiated. Regardless of what the different types of peak-oilers think the effects of peak oil will be, we can mostly agree on the need for raising awareness of oil depletion and conservation. Telling people we need to permanently powerdown and eventually die-out is no sensible way to encourage positive steps towards a better future. This approach tends to alienate people, often having the opposite effect then that desired by us all, resulting in people stubbornly ignoring the need for change.

This is why highlighting the light at the end of the tunnel is necessary when raising awareness of peak oil, and why it's important to keep an open mind about what the future may hold. If people believe that they are working towards a brighter future, they are far more likely to make the positive changes in their lives in order for that future to become a reality. Alternatively doomers would seem to prefer that the masses just give up and die, an attitude that will likely result in complacency, as is evident by many doomer attitudes on sites like peakoil.com.

So what exactly is this light at the end of the peak oil tunnel?

The industrialisation of space. The promise of a new, virtually inexhaustible supply of resources free for the taking, offering endless energy, mineral and economic opportunities and an endless expanse in which to expand and to grow far into the future, while simultaneously reducing the damage done to the planet and restoring it's former beauty.

But why bother with space, how is it even possible, and couldn't the money be better spent?

The why, is simple. The reason to exploit space is that either we find new locations of resources (off-world), or we deplete all of the Earth's finite resources and eventually face extinction. It really is that simple. The Earth only has finite resources. Even if we overcome the energy limitations of finite fossil fuels, there are plenty of other finite resources that humanity consumes. Eventually these finite resources will run out, and either we find more resources, or we shrivel up and die. But guess what? Surrounding the Earth and the inner solar system are vast quantities of everything we will ever need. It's all made from the same stardust that the Earth and everything on it is made from. It's only logical to use it rather then perish.

The how is more complex and will take several follow up articles to explain various aspects. But the important thing to note is that exploiting space isn't an unrealistic proposition of building some magical Star Trek like technology and zipping off to distant planets. It's merely a simple matter of continuing a process that began over 70 years ago with early chemical rocket technology. It's about deciding that we are going to make it a priority, dedicating the necessary resources, and continuing the process one step at a time. More on how to industrialise space for our long-term benefit later…

The costs of developing space are undoubtedly as astronomical as the dream itself. However considering the long-term payoffs, and especially compared to other endeavours of the modern world, developing space is actually a bargain. As many people know, NASA is far from a cost effective space agency, but even NASA's operations are cheap compared to other things the developed world wastes money on.

Lets compare some costs:

Costs of space (NASA and European projects, in year 2000 U.S. dollars):
A single shuttle launch is currently estimated at around $300 million, and a European Ariane 5G rocket launch at around $165 million. Source
The International Space Station is estimated at around $100 billion, Source and the Russian Mir space station cost $4.3 billion. Source
The latest NASA Mars rovers cost around $600 million, and the European Beagle 2 Mars
probe cost around $50 million. Source
The Apollo moon landings cost $135 billion in 2005 dollars.

As we can see, space is considerably expensive. Arguably NASA could do things far more cheaply and is a poor fiscal performer compared to similar projects by other space agencies, but even considering NASA's tendency for over budgeted projects, the costs of space development are still justifiable for an endeavour as noble as ensuring our collective future.

Now lets consider the costs of a few other aspects of the modern world:
According to a study by the NDIA, in 1992 drug abuse cost the U.S. an estimated $246
billion dollars, and the costs are increasing each year. Source
Thanks to fast food culture, overweight and obesity medical expenses in the U.S. accounted for $92.6 billion dollars in 2003, and like drug abuse, is a problem increasing each year. Source
And of course lets not forget war, the pinnacle of wasteful endeavours.
According to this Source, the Iraq war has currently cost U.S. tax payers over $200 billion.
This site also has some interesting cost estimates for previous U.S. conflicts (adjusted to year 2000 dollars):
American Civil War -$62 Billion
Spanish American War -$5 Billion
World War One -$290 Billion
World War Two -$2,300 Billion
Korean Conflict -$111 Billion
Vietnam -$165 Billion
Perhaps we don't have our priorities right? Surely working towards setting up countless future generations with access to virtually infinite resources should be important to people?

We mourn the deaths of the 18 humans that have died in space in the history of space flight, yet we willingly send millions more to their deaths in pointless things such as road accidents, drug and obesity epidemics, and wars. We gladly spend considerable sums of money on things that offer little long-term benefit to humanity, and many things that don't offer any benefit at all, and yet many people consider space development to be a waste of money. This is very misguided thinking. The fact is, space development and progress represents the best possible investment humanity can be involved in. The potential benefits are massive, and far outweigh the costs. And above all else, space development is humanities only shot at true long-term sustainability. Space industrialisation is the light at the end of the peak oil tunnel, but only if we adopt the right attitude.

In my follow-up posts, I intend to primarily focus on the long-term future of humanity, and to elaborate on how industrialised civilisation will not be dismantling and heading for the caves, but evolving and reaching for the stars.
-- by Omnitir

31 Comments:

At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 3:58:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're losing me. You not talking about colonizing other planets in our solar system are you? That's pretty nuts.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 4:31:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

Omnitir is talking, in the near term, about harvesting energy and other resources from orbit and the moon.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:13:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good, because he talks about space too generally. Starts to sound like Captain Kirk. Junior High School level astronomy says were stuck here for good. You want to beam something off the moon, fine. We're not going anywhere habitable.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:26:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh jeez, here we go again.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:29:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your losing us JD, man that one is a bit too, err visionary... step away from the pipe dude.

Seriously though this is a LONG term goal, no?

I think the vision of stabilizing world populations at a sustainable level and achieving a non environmentally destructive and more equitable economic structure would be a more realistic light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel.

We split the atom with 2 billion souls on Earth... why do we need 9 billion to get into space. Powerdown, reduce populations, then think about Star Trek.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 6:03:00 PM PST, Blogger Quantoken said...

You are talking fantacies again!

The point is there are plenty of alternative sources of natural resource in the universe, even within the solar system, or even within the earth itself. But none of them are even remotely accessible within the foreseeable future, before a total collapse of civilization due to oil depletion. And of course, without a prosperious economy of a civil society, any talk of futurist technology is only day dream.

We can go fetch some methanes from one of the outer planets. There are plenty for us to fetch. But there is no technology to do anything remotely close to that goal.

We can dig a big hole on the ground and build a huge Carnot engine based on the huge underground heat reservior, and the colder surface temperature. That energy can probably sustain us for a few thousand years. But we are at least 50 away from being able to utilize thermal heat in a massive scale, in a way that provides more energy than that we invest in building the eqipments and carry out the operations.

Hey, we have plenty of methane hydrates right at the bottom of the oceans, which is equivalent to several times of the petroleum reserves. But we have no way of accessing them and nothing feasible in the foreseeable future. Due to extreme pressure, reaching the bottom of the ocean is almost as difficult as reaching the moon.

In all, there are plenty of things we can think about. But none is both technically feasible and can ramp up and scale up to provide all the energy needs, within a short time period. Especially consider that we have just passed the peak oil.

And the Natural Gas spot price has now surpassed $17 per million BTU ($17 per thousand cubic feet). Some predit it will surpass $20 by the end of this year. And back in 2001 it was just $2. I suppose you can go mine some methane gas from the Neptune to reduce the natural gas price for the next month, while making a profit?

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 6:21:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

quantoken,
Nobody except you is talking about fetching methane from the outer planets (or Neptune), Carnot engines in the earth, or methane hydrates under the ocean.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 6:25:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

So if we do ever want a reason to explore space it should be done with the purpose of accessing energy and resources, along with general scientific discoveries. And if we ever want to do that task effectively, it should be approached without ever attempting to send humans to space.

Excellent, excellent point. I couldn't agree more. Space should be developed with robotics and teleoperation. If you can do surgery by remote control, you can mine the moon by remote control.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 6:53:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

Powerdown, reduce populations, then think about Star Trek.

From a political standpoint, your idea is dead in the water. What do you think ordinary people will support: population control and powerdown, or an exciting techno-fix like space, which promises more growth and increasing prosperity?

Even down-to-earth politicians like Bartlett say we need an energy program like the Apollo program. They just need to wake up to the fact that the energy program will be a lot more like Apollo than they realize.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 7:55:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it seems to me that nanotech assemblers will be feasible long before large-scale outer space resource extraction

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 8:51:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JD, I love the Blog and most of the stuff on here but when articles start to get posted about getting energy from space travel - you're killing me!

Why feed the doomers if you don't have too!

Again, I love the site but you really gotta stop talking about space energy dude!

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 9:23:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/051219/19energy.htm

Debunk that you heartless motherfuckers.

People are going to freeze to death, sewage pipes are going to be bursting,etc and you jackasses are debunking it.

Idiots.

 
At Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 11:21:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

People are going to freeze to death, sewage pipes are going to be bursting,etc and you jackasses are debunking it.

Idiots.


Hey, you snooze, you lose. You foolishly wasted your share of the world's NG without thinking, and now you're going to pay the price for it. It's a moral tale. America is the grasshopper in Aesop's story. You don't deserve any sympathy.

If you've got a problem with your habits/infrastructure over there, you better start figuring out ways to fix it, instead of whining about nobody being there to hold your hand.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 1:11:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this scenario

http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/ThePeakOilWar.pdf

is far more likely than the space crap.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 1:18:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

the exponential improvement of renewable energy technology

Roland, is renewable energy technology actually improving exponentially? I'd like to see some real figures on that. For example, is the efficiency of solar cells improving exponentially?

I'd also like to see even a scenario (even a real rough one) describing how Japan could supply its own energy and raw material needs through renewable energy.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 1:59:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you put 300b US$ in renewables, you also pretty much dented peak oil to a pulp.

Put in another 300b US$ and we're home free.

So I am not sure why you want to go into space. Much cheaper solving the fix here at home.

Or am I missing the point here?

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 2:17:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

richard,
As i said to Roland: I would like to see the exact breakdown of how you plan to power the U.S. (or the UK, or Japan) with renewables. That would also include powering the industrial infrastructure.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 3:07:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JD,

When the US economy collapse, what do you think is going to happen to Japan?

You think you're going to be so smug when you realize how screwed you are?

What exactly do you do for a living?

Do you really think there will still be a demand for whatever you do when the global economy tanks?

Maybe then you support yourself debunking things.

JD wrote:


Hey, you snooze, you lose. You foolishly wasted your share of the world's NG without thinking, and now you're going to pay the price for it. It's a moral tale. America is the grasshopper in Aesop's story. You don't deserve any sympathy.

If you've got a problem with your habits/infrastructure over there, you better start figuring out ways to fix it, instead of whining about nobody being there to hold your hand.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 3:23:00 AM PST, Blogger Jan-Willem Bats said...

Roland,

"Once things can be built on a molecular scale, we won't need to bring back stuff from the moon. We can create the ultimate closed loop, where anything can be dissasembled and turned into anything else. This will apply to food as well. There is no reason that this cannot be accomplished within fifty years."

Actually, the current timetable seems to be a lot closer to 10 years than 50.

See www.crnano.org for details.


JD,

Yes, solar panels are growing exponentially. They improve a certain percentage each year. They're slated to become cost competative with conventional energy sources around 2010.

Kurzweil has calculated that we only need to trap 0.003% of the sun's energy to meet the entire world's energy needs.

It's in his new book, The Singularity Is Near.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 8:04:00 AM PST, Blogger Step Back said...

JD ---Good post.
The LNG is out there.

We don't even need to drill to find it. We just gotta haul it from Jupiter to here in space tankers so we can further increase CO2 and decrease O2 in our atmosphere.

Just kidding. The real answer is solar power. Mirrors in space and solar power. Good post.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 8:50:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The northeast is facing a natural gas shortage and lots of people could freeze to death this winter, but it honestly has nothing to do with peak oil, it has to do with America's desire to heat their entire house and the government not letting us know how serious the problem is.

I don't think that many people will actually die over it, infact I'd be suprised if it was one tenth as many that die from the flu each year, but we'll get by.

Interestingly enough even if gas was 3 times more expensive than it is now I'd be doing fine because I use significantly less than i do last year.

I think space power is long term, and I believe the US could be entirely powered by nuclear reactors, breeder reactors would have enough fuel to last very, very far into the future.

Entirely on renewables is extremely unlikely, but we've got at least a century before we "run out", more than enough time for these space programs.

I agree with the poster of this if we do this -

1. Mitigate peak oil
2. Deal with peak oil, build as much of a renewable based economy as possible
3. investigate more "exotic" alternatives (space based)

number 2 will likely compose the better part of this century.

But back to the gas situation, JD is right we made our beds now we gotta lie in them, I suggest you tell anybody struggling with energy costs JD's methods for saving NG, they don't work for everyone but damned if they didn't work for me

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 11:01:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like this site. I think you should rename it, though. And you should limit your outer space talk to satellite or moon-based solar panels. You cannot talk about our minds leaving our bodies and migrating to outer space. You will have no credibility if you continue to post this kind of material.

 
At Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 1:44:00 PM PST, Blogger John O'Neill said...

"You will have no credibility if you continue to post this kind of material."

I find it rather amusing that this was posted by, "Anonymous."

Why can't the debunkers talk about minds leaving our bodies and migrating to outer space? If Kurzweil can do it, so can we!

 
At Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 9:32:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And who's going to do this?

The market? The government?

 
At Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 10:55:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

omnitir's last comment is something that i think should be in the original post so people get it instead of mixing it up with some star trek babble (see first post to see how someone totally misunderstood).

the cost of WWII is negligible compared to what it did for the US economy. i don't have any numbers handy but i'm sure that by 1950 the "cost" of WWII was actually a sum gain.

not advocating war, just pointing out how large scale action in the face of adversity can have positive effects in ways we can't even predict yet.

 
At Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 5:27:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a political standpoint, your idea is dead in the water. What do you think ordinary people will support: population control and powerdown, or an exciting techno-fix like space, which promises more growth and increasing prosperity?

Rubbish, regardless of peak oil, the pseudoscience of economics will have to be completely overhauled if molecular assembly becomes a reality. This process is already underway in academic circles... see Santa Fe Institute in particular W. Brian Arthur's work HERE

Population control will not be necessary in first world countries. Does Japan exercise population control? It is doing everything it can to encourage population growth because its population is ageing and shrinking. Molecular manufacturing could provide a high standard of living to countries now developing so they can skip 20th century industrialisation.

If we are going to populate space with AI and robots can you explain why we still need growth of populations on earth. Population pressure is the real culprit of habitat destruction and ecological dispruption... also remember that the economists of the 60's and 70's promised leisure lifestyles and wealth for all through growth and technology. This goal is as far away as ever, if not further...

 
At Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 9:25:00 PM PST, Blogger BlackSun said...

You can't talk about solutions without talking about nanotechnology and the singularity. Those who think it's all Star Trek haven't been doing their research. No energy discussion can be complete without understanding the impact of nanotechnology and replication. You've got to read Kurzweil, or you will be hopelessly stuck in the "linear intuitive" vision of the future, which is no vision at all. I do agree, however, that there are plenty of unexplored solutions to the energy dilemma right here on earth.

 
At Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 11:51:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

blacksun,
How exactly will nanotech, the singularity and replication produce energy?

 
At Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 4:57:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

Can you explain that in more practical terms, Roland? Are you saying we're going to be producing an infinite amount of energy from PV? If not, what are you saying?

 
At Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 8:02:00 PM PST, Blogger Sonny said...

Great way to sabotage optimism about energy crises. Suggest the only hope is "space industries" without saying how they would produce any energy.

1) A rocket has to be fully loaded with chemical fuel to take off, and the payload that can returned from space is always much smaller in volume and weight. The payload must contain more energy than in any possible chemical fuel, for the project to be energy positive.

2) The cost of mining uranium on the moon instead of on Earth might not be high enough to make it energy negative, but there's little chance of it ever being more efficient than finding or more efficiently using uranium on Earth.

3) The moon's surface contains isotopes of helium and hydrogen that could be used in fusion power plants, except that fusion power plants haven't been invented yet. There's no need to mine the moon for extra fuel to put into imaginary fusion power plants.

4) It's possible to put solar panels in orbit around Earth and beam the power down to microwave dishes. This increases the solar energy reaching the panels by three or four times (with no night, clouds, or atmosphere.) It increases the panels' cost of installation by several million times. It would also cook birds and airplanes that cross the microwave beams, unless the power is beamed down at low enough density that the receiving stations might as well just have their own solar panels instead.

5) Solving these energy efficiency limitations by building a bridge to geostationary orbit is an idea supported by those who haven't heard of the jet stream and the need for bridges of even a few tens of meters to be reinforced against windstorms (see film of Galloping Gertie, the Tacoma Narrows bridge that collapsed by resonant vibrations without being in a hurricane.) Arthur C. Clarke wrote that some unspecified work on resonance mathematics would be done to solve this fatal flaw of the concept in one of his fantasy novels, The Fountains of Paradise.

 
At Monday, December 19, 2005 at 5:34:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

Roland, I don't deny that the future is hard to predict, and that technological progress is accelerating. I also think AI is a lot closer than most people realize. Even Google itself is a sort of primitive AI which "knows" an incredible volume of things (it just doesn't know that it knows it yet :-). I'm very sympathetic to your basic thinking, but I'm not so sanguine about energy. I agree with Smalley and Criswell that, ideally, we need enough energy to raise the standards of living of all peoples on earth, and I don't think that's going to be easy at all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home