Overshoot

[MediumTex]

When trying to put together a useful mental model for how energy sources affect human culture and society, cheap fossil fuels stand in contrast to all other forms of energy, including expensive fossil fuels.

Once fossil fuels begin to get expensive compared to earlier price levels due to increasing scarcity, they begin to soil the nest of industrial capitalism in the same way that renewables do.

Cheap fossil fuels are what we need for business as usual.  Natural gas will be filling that role for the next 10-20 years, but I don't know what comes after that.  There is also a lot of cheap coal still to be dug up, but coal isn't a transportation fuel.

[Mountaineer]

When trying to put together a useful mental model for how energy sources affect human culture and society, cheap fossil fuels stand in contrast to all other forms of energy, including expensive fossil fuels.

Once fossil fuels begin to get expensive compared to earlier price levels due to increasing scarcity, they begin to soil the nest of industrial capitalism in the same way that renewables do.

Cheap fossil fuels are what we need for business as usual.  Natural gas will be filling that role for the next 10-20 years, but I don't know what comes after that.  There is also a lot of cheap coal still to be dug up, but coal isn't a transportation fuel.

MT,

Just out of curiosity, what got you so fired up (pun intended) about this subject? 

I'm asking because from my area of expertise, there is not much I can do about it one way or the other; maybe that is not true for you.  Sure, I have opinions on the subject, but not to the point of obsession, and it almost appears you are heading toward obsession.  I'm only saying this to explain my question, not to judge you.  I have plenty of my own obsessions. 

... M

[MediumTex]

When trying to put together a useful mental model for how energy sources affect human culture and society, cheap fossil fuels stand in contrast to all other forms of energy, including expensive fossil fuels.

Once fossil fuels begin to get expensive compared to earlier price levels due to increasing scarcity, they begin to soil the nest of industrial capitalism in the same way that renewables do.

Cheap fossil fuels are what we need for business as usual.  Natural gas will be filling that role for the next 10-20 years, but I don't know what comes after that.  There is also a lot of cheap coal still to be dug up, but coal isn't a transportation fuel.

MT,

Just out of curiosity, what got you so fired up (pun intended) about this subject? 

I'm asking because from my area of expertise, there is not much I can do about it one way or the other; maybe that is not true for you.  Sure, I have opinions on the subject, but not to the point of obsession, and it almost appears you are heading toward obsession.  I'm only saying this to explain my question, not to judge you.  I have plenty of my own obsessions. 

... M

I'm actually accessing a lot of pretty old memories in this discussion.  I was pretty deep into studying peak oil-related topics in the 2004-2008 period and I covered everything very exhaustively. 

Once the effects on the world economy became clear in 2008 from even moderately expensive oil (i.e., $150 per barrel), I shifted away from thinking too much about peak oil because it became clear to me that our financial system would break long before fossil fuels would actually become truly scarce, and that's when I started seriously studying out financial system as a set of philosophical beliefs, only one facet of which relates to our beliefs about how natural resources fit into our financial system.

So I've got deep grooves in my mind when it comes to resource constraints and reconciling them with unconstrained human belief systems, but if it was ever an obsession it would have been in the 2005-2006 period.  Once I learned about Harry Browne and his position on the inscrutability of the future, I chilled out a lot.

But I still like discussing it any time I can find someone who is willing to get up to speed and has a different position than mine.

To get the hooks in Pointedstick on this topic is like winning a prize in an Awesome Discussions contest.  The fact that I can see mental space in his own head that he hasn't uncovered yet (but which I know he will) only adds to the excitement of getting him engaged in the discussion.  He thinks he wants it to be simple, but what he really wants is to sink his teeth into the biggest mental challenge he can find with no promise that he will ever be able to digest what he bites off.  His only real fear is being disappointed that what he bites off is easier to digest than he imagined, and even bores him as it passes through his system.

But I've always thought that the peak oil/overshoot/sustainable habitat discussion was much better as a tool to learn more about ourselves and our societies than about the natural resource constraints that have been the downfall of so many civilizations before ours.

[Mountaineer]

When trying to put together a useful mental model for how energy sources affect human culture and society, cheap fossil fuels stand in contrast to all other forms of energy, including expensive fossil fuels.

Once fossil fuels begin to get expensive compared to earlier price levels due to increasing scarcity, they begin to soil the nest of industrial capitalism in the same way that renewables do.

Cheap fossil fuels are what we need for business as usual.  Natural gas will be filling that role for the next 10-20 years, but I don't know what comes after that.  There is also a lot of cheap coal still to be dug up, but coal isn't a transportation fuel.

MT,

Just out of curiosity, what got you so fired up (pun intended) about this subject? 

I'm asking because from my area of expertise, there is not much I can do about it one way or the other; maybe that is not true for you.  Sure, I have opinions on the subject, but not to the point of obsession, and it almost appears you are heading toward obsession.  I'm only saying this to explain my question, not to judge you.  I have plenty of my own obsessions. 

... M

I'm actually accessing a lot of pretty old memories in this discussion.  I was pretty deep into studying peak oil-related topics in the 2004-2008 period and I covered everything very exhaustively. 

Once the effects on the world economy became clear in 2008 from even moderately expensive oil (i.e., $150 per barrel), I shifted away from thinking too much about peak oil because it became clear to me that our financial system would break long before fossil fuels would actually become truly scarce, and that's when I started seriously studying out financial system as a set of philosophical beliefs, only one facet of which relates to our beliefs about how natural resources fit into our financial system.

So I've got deep grooves in my mind when it comes to resource constraints and reconciling them with unconstrained human belief systems, but if it was ever an obsession it would have been in the 2005-2006 period.  Once I learned about Harry Browne and his position on the inscrutability of the future, I chilled out a lot.

But I still like discussing it any time I can find someone who is willing to get up to speed and has a different position than mine.

To get the hooks in Pointedstick on this topic is like winning a prize in an Awesome Discussions contest.  The fact that I can see mental space in his own head that he hasn't uncovered yet (but which I know he will) only adds to the excitement of getting him engaged in the discussion.  He thinks he wants it to be simple, but what he really wants is to sink his teeth into the biggest mental challenge he can find with no promise that he will ever be able to digest what he bites off.  His only real fear is being disappointed that what he bites off is easier to digest than he imagined, and even bores him as it passes through his system.

But I've always thought that the peak oil/overshoot/sustainable habitat discussion was much better as a tool to learn more about ourselves and our societies than about the natural resource constraints that have been the downfall of so many civilizations before ours.

I get it!  Thanks.  I think you know what scratches my itch.  Just think of the parallels: "Me = you.  You (and others) = PS."  Resistance is futile.  And, I can hear you saying "likewise". 

... M

[Libertarian666]

So the scientists got to work on their renewable energy/non-fossil fuel energy plans, and in some cases they did some really neat work.  What everyone came to notice over time, though, was that all of the scientists' energy creations had the vague appearance of a prosthetic device used to replace a missing human appendage.  None of the scientists' creations came remotely close to matching the elegance and versatility of the original appendage supplied by Mother Nature.  People came to think of fossil fuels as the hands of industrial humanity, and each attempt by the scientists to create a replacement hand seemed more macabre than the effort before it.  In time, of course, it became painfully obvious that the mind of humanity could not create a source of energy remotely resembling fossil fuels, but their pride kept them from admitting defeat and revising their cultural, religious, economic and financial beliefs, and that was probably what made it the worst for them.

What?

Fossil fuels are not "the original appendage supplied by Mother Nature." That would be the human arms and legs! Fossil fuels are not especially elegant or impressive. They are simply combustible hydrocarbons you can burn to produce heat or rotational velocity, and with them, all kinds of other cool effects. Their only major feature is a high energy density which allows vehicles to have a high power-to-weight ratio. But that only really matters for vehicles that can't be connected to the grid while in motion (like trains can). For electricity generation, it's largely irrelevant, and once you neutralize the advantage of an especially high energy density, you don't really need fossil fuels as long as the economics of alternatives are sound.

Non-fossil-fuel alternatives are just fine. If you have a heat pump, you already have a non-fossil-fuel version of a furnace. Electric cars are awesome to drive and have far superior performance and handling in most respects, range being their only drawback. All gas-powered home appliances have electric versions that can be just as "elegant and versatile"--in fact more so since they don't have complicated venting and make-up air requirements and can't poison you in your own home. And so on.

Whether or not electrically-powered machines supplies with electric power generated from renewable sources are as elegant as fossil fuel burners does not strike me as especially relevant or even true. If they work, what's the problem? Replacing my gas burning water heater with an electric or solar heater does not strike me as "admitting defeat." I'll admit your position here doesn't make much sense to me. It's very spiritual and not very practical, but the matter at hand is entirely a practical one.

As soon as I see a practical way to store the energy from renewables, I'm sold.

Maybe Heinlein was right in Friday that whoever figures that out will end up owning the entire solar system.

[Mountaineer]

So the scientists got to work on their renewable energy/non-fossil fuel energy plans, and in some cases they did some really neat work.  What everyone came to notice over time, though, was that all of the scientists' energy creations had the vague appearance of a prosthetic device used to replace a missing human appendage.  None of the scientists' creations came remotely close to matching the elegance and versatility of the original appendage supplied by Mother Nature.  People came to think of fossil fuels as the hands of industrial humanity, and each attempt by the scientists to create a replacement hand seemed more macabre than the effort before it.  In time, of course, it became painfully obvious that the mind of humanity could not create a source of energy remotely resembling fossil fuels, but their pride kept them from admitting defeat and revising their cultural, religious, economic and financial beliefs, and that was probably what made it the worst for them.

What?

Fossil fuels are not "the original appendage supplied by Mother Nature." That would be the human arms and legs! Fossil fuels are not especially elegant or impressive. They are simply combustible hydrocarbons you can burn to produce heat or rotational velocity, and with them, all kinds of other cool effects. Their only major feature is a high energy density which allows vehicles to have a high power-to-weight ratio. But that only really matters for vehicles that can't be connected to the grid while in motion (like trains can). For electricity generation, it's largely irrelevant, and once you neutralize the advantage of an especially high energy density, you don't really need fossil fuels as long as the economics of alternatives are sound.

Non-fossil-fuel alternatives are just fine. If you have a heat pump, you already have a non-fossil-fuel version of a furnace. Electric cars are awesome to drive and have far superior performance and handling in most respects, range being their only drawback. All gas-powered home appliances have electric versions that can be just as "elegant and versatile"--in fact more so since they don't have complicated venting and make-up air requirements and can't poison you in your own home. And so on.

Whether or not electrically-powered machines supplies with electric power generated from renewable sources are as elegant as fossil fuel burners does not strike me as especially relevant or even true. If they work, what's the problem? Replacing my gas burning water heater with an electric or solar heater does not strike me as "admitting defeat." I'll admit your position here doesn't make much sense to me. It's very spiritual and not very practical, but the matter at hand is entirely a practical one.

As soon as I see a practical way to store the energy from renewables, I'm sold.

Maybe Heinlein was right in Friday that whoever figures that out will end up owning the entire solar system.

I think you have the answer to the problem.  We just need infinitesimally small "batteries" that store infinitely large quantities of energy.  Or infinitesimally small power generating sources to carry around in our pockets.  Beam me up, Scotty. 

... M

[MediumTex]

What?

Fossil fuels are not "the original appendage supplied by Mother Nature." That would be the human arms and legs! Fossil fuels are not especially elegant or impressive. They are simply combustible hydrocarbons you can burn to produce heat or rotational velocity, and with them, all kinds of other cool effects. Their only major feature is a high energy density which allows vehicles to have a high power-to-weight ratio. But that only really matters for vehicles that can't be connected to the grid while in motion (like trains can). For electricity generation, it's largely irrelevant, and once you neutralize the advantage of an especially high energy density, you don't really need fossil fuels as long as the economics of alternatives are sound.

Non-fossil-fuel alternatives are just fine. If you have a heat pump, you already have a non-fossil-fuel version of a furnace. Electric cars are awesome to drive and have far superior performance and handling in most respects, range being their only drawback. All gas-powered home appliances have electric versions that can be just as "elegant and versatile"--in fact more so since they don't have complicated venting and make-up air requirements and can't poison you in your own home. And so on.

Whether or not electrically-powered machines supplies with electric power generated from renewable sources are as elegant as fossil fuel burners does not strike me as especially relevant or even true. If they work, what's the problem? Replacing my gas burning water heater with an electric or solar heater does not strike me as "admitting defeat." I'll admit your position here doesn't make much sense to me. It's very spiritual and not very practical, but the matter at hand is entirely a practical one.

As soon as I see a practical way to store the energy from renewables, I'm sold.

Maybe Heinlein was right in Friday that whoever figures that out will end up owning the entire solar system.

I think you have the answer to the problem.  We just need infinitesimally small "batteries" that store infinitely large quantities of energy.  Or infinitesimally small power generating sources to carry around in our pockets.  Beam me up, Scotty. 

... M

I think that every human being should be given a bank of batteries to maintain with a couple of different forms of energy coming in such as solar and wind that need to be stored.

When you realize just how inefficient those systems are, how bulky batteries in general are, and just how narrow the band of useful voltage is in a typical 12 volt system, it can provide a whole new appreciation for what a gallon of gasoline can do.

[I Shrugged]

With less subtlety than my prior post, I'm suggesting you all might enjoy a different take on this, in the book The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.

[MediumTex]

With less subtlety than my prior post, I'm suggesting you all might enjoy a different take on this, in the book The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley.

Can you share a little more about why or how this book might expand our understanding?

As I recall, the book focuses on "cultural evolution" as a path to future prosperity.  I've always reacted to that sort of argument by asking what resource inputs will be necessary for certain types of cultural evolution to occur.  Invariably, the answer it that cultural evolution works best with cheap and portable sources of energy available. 

The ecosystem is the hardware.  The culture is the software.  The software can only run as well as the hardware will let it.

[I Shrugged]

I don't recall the term cultural evolution being used in the book.  He discusses how humans, left to their own devices, have used specialization and trade to enhance their lives and solve each new problem that presented itself.  He says world population growth is slowing, and that this comes from prosperity and better health.  Crop yields keep increasing.  Energy is just another Malthusian non-problem that will be handled just fine.  Global warming probably won't be as big a deal as feared.

Another way to review the book would be to say there have always been doom and gloom predictions.  He reviews the history of them, and how and why they did not come to pass.  And, why he feels the same will hold in the future.

Lastly, it made me feel better.

[MediumTex]

I don't recall the term cultural evolution being used in the book.  He discusses how humans, left to their own devices, have used specialization and trade to enhance their lives and solve each new problem that presented itself.  He says world population growth is slowing, and that this comes from prosperity and better health.  Crop yields keep increasing.  Energy is just another Malthusian non-problem that will be handled just fine.  Global warming probably won't be as big a deal as feared.

Another way to review the book would be to say there have always been doom and gloom predictions.  He reviews the history of them, and how and why they did not come to pass.  And, why he feels the same will hold in the future.

Lastly, it made me feel better.

I wonder how it would have made the dinosaurs feel.  Hopefully it would have comforted them.

[Pointedstick]

To get the hooks in Pointedstick on this topic is like winning a prize in an Awesome Discussions contest.  The fact that I can see mental space in his own head that he hasn't uncovered yet (but which I know he will) only adds to the excitement of getting him engaged in the discussion.  He thinks he wants it to be simple, but what he really wants is to sink his teeth into the biggest mental challenge he can find with no promise that he will ever be able to digest what he bites off.  His only real fear is being disappointed that what he bites off is easier to digest than he imagined, and even bores him as it passes through his system.

By how well you described it (to say nothing of your posting habits), I must assume that you too suffer from a near-debilitating need to consume intellectually challenging puzzles to stave off boredom. I would love to learn how you deal with it without resorting to simple hedonic intellectually-challenging-puzzle-seeking behavior, since you are a much more centered and zen-like person that I am.

Back on the subject of the thread, I'll resume soon. It's been busy around the house lately with the new baby!

[Mountaineer]

To get the hooks in Pointedstick on this topic is like winning a prize in an Awesome Discussions contest.  The fact that I can see mental space in his own head that he hasn't uncovered yet (but which I know he will) only adds to the excitement of getting him engaged in the discussion.  He thinks he wants it to be simple, but what he really wants is to sink his teeth into the biggest mental challenge he can find with no promise that he will ever be able to digest what he bites off.  His only real fear is being disappointed that what he bites off is easier to digest than he imagined, and even bores him as it passes through his system.

By how well you described it (to say nothing of your posting habits), I must assume that you too suffer from a near-debilitating need to consume intellectually challenging puzzles to stave off boredom. I would love to learn how you deal with it without resorting to simple hedonic intellectually-challenging-puzzle-seeking behavior, since you are a much more centered and zen-like person that I am.

Back on the subject of the thread, I'll resume soon. It's been busy around the house lately with the new baby!

LOL.  Excuses, excuses, excuses.      [From my perspective, your priorities are spot on.  Enjoy the baby, help your wife, but don't you dare forgo this forum.  You have too much to contribute to the rest of us peons.]

... M

[Xan]

It's been busy around the house lately with the new baby!

Congratulations!!!

[Pointedstick]

It's a girl! Now we have the classic older boy younger girl thing going on, and can officially refer to "the kids." So far she's a pretty easy baby, much easier than #1 was at her age. Hopefully there's enough oil left for them when they're 50.

[MediumTex]

It's a girl! Now we have the classic older boy younger girl thing going on, and can officially refer to "the kids." So far she's a pretty easy baby, much easier than #1 was at her age. Hopefully there's enough oil left for them when they're 50.

Congratulations my friend.

Babies are so much fun, even though they are obviously a lot of work.

[MediumTex]

My dad was nearly 30 when I was born.  That was old at the time, I think (at least, I seem to remember my dad being old compared to my friends' dads).  But, as we both know, 30 is nuthin'.

My understanding is that a lot of Millenials are projected to just be reaching puberty by age 30.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, back to this topic!

Here's an article more or less explaining my feelings on the matter: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/

In a nutshell, I acknowledge the apparently sound theoretical underpinnings of the theory, but simply put, none of the predictions that Catton made--either long term or short term--have come true. We've had 43 years to see. That's longer than a lot of people currently living have been alive for. This is why I said I got a very "Austrian Economics" vibe from the book. There are a lot of parallels:
- An intuitively appealing, intellectually rigorous theory explained by a persuasive writer
- The notion that one of our fundamental, foundational institutions is corrupt and rotten
- Assurances that the system is unsalvageably bad, and must be entirely thrown out and replaced with something from our past that we have already rejected
- No individually actionable solutions; the only option is total societal reversion to a past state of existence when it comes to the described problem
- Dire predictions of terrible consequences stemming from a failure to remedy this deficiency by following the author's un-implementable advice
- A total lack of those consequences actually manifesting in the multiple decades since the prediction was made
- The only way the theory still makes sense is if the consequences are simply farther off, perpetually over the next hill… anywhere off into the future in such a manner that makes the theory unfalsifiable

In this particular case, the longer the dire predictions fail to materialize, the stronger a case is made for "cargoism" as we innovate our way out of the problem. Simply put, if in 50 years we've almost completely weaned ourselves off oil by transitioning to electric power and renewable energy source electrical generation, then Catton's thesis will no longer apply.

Clearly that hasn't happened yet. But the world is just as clearly moving in that direction for many reasons, and the more time goes by, the closer we get to that point.

[Pointedstick]

Bump, now that MediumTex is back.

[MediumTex]

Okay, back to this topic!

Here's an article more or less explaining my feelings on the matter: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/

In a nutshell, I acknowledge the apparently sound theoretical underpinnings of the theory, but simply put, none of the predictions that Catton made--either long term or short term--have come true. We've had 43 years to see. That's longer than a lot of people currently living have been alive for. This is why I said I got a very "Austrian Economics" vibe from the book. There are a lot of parallels:
- An intuitively appealing, intellectually rigorous theory explained by a persuasive writer

I think part of Catton's analysis isn't intuitive to people who have grown up in a world where endless growth was a given.

- The notion that one of our fundamental, foundational institutions is corrupt and rotten

I think that Catton would say that it isn't the institutions that are corrupt, but rather that the beliefs they are premised upon are simply wrong.

- Assurances that the system is unsalvageably bad, and must be entirely thrown out and replaced with something from our past that we have already rejected

I think that Catton's premise is actually a bit darker than that.  My reading of Catton is that there is basically a virus in the human thought operating system.  Evolution shows us that you typically don't "fix" things like that.  You just see an extinction event and Mother Nature moves in a different direction.

- No individually actionable solutions; the only option is total societal reversion to a past state of existence when it comes to the described problem

Unfortunately, I think that's right.

- Dire predictions of terrible consequences stemming from a failure to remedy this deficiency by following the author's un-implementable advice

Right, and that's why it is disturbing.

- A total lack of those consequences actually manifesting in the multiple decades since the prediction was made

It hasn't been nearly long enough.  I read Catton's thesis as unfolding over several centuries.

- The only way the theory still makes sense is if the consequences are simply farther off, perpetually over the next hill… anywhere off into the future in such a manner that makes the theory unfalsifiable

Not perpetually beyond the horizon, just beyond the horizons we are conditioned to think about.

In this particular case, the longer the dire predictions fail to materialize, the stronger a case is made for "cargoism" as we innovate our way out of the problem. Simply put, if in 50 years we've almost completely weaned ourselves off oil by transitioning to electric power and renewable energy source electrical generation, then Catton's thesis will no longer apply.

I'm not against using our cleverness in every way we can to solve the problem.  The question is whether we overestimate the impact of our cleverness without the tailwind of cheap and easy energy.

Clearly that hasn't happened yet. But the world is just as clearly moving in that direction for many reasons, and the more time goes by, the closer we get to that point.

I agree that the more time that goes by, the closer we get to the point where we will find out if an economic system premised upon endless growth is viable in a world of finite resources.

Catton was essentially describing a historic tailwind to human progress turning into a headwind in the future.  It will be fascinating to see how humanity responds to it, but Catton's analysis of ecological constraints on growth was IMHO pretty sound.

[BearBones]

Nice point, counterpoint!

[Pointedstick]

I think part of Catton's analysis isn't intuitive to people who have grown up in a world where endless growth was a given.

That makes sense; I can see how it would make intuitive sense to someone who lived through the 70s. But how much intuitive sense it makes is irrelevant. It is accurate or not regardless of how much or how little it appeals to any given person.

It hasn't been nearly long enough.  I read Catton's thesis as unfolding over several centuries.
[...]
Not perpetually beyond the horizon, just beyond the horizons we are conditioned to think about.
[...]
I'm not against using our cleverness in every way we can to solve the problem.  The question is whether we overestimate the impact of our cleverness without the tailwind of cheap and easy energy.
[...]
I agree that the more time that goes by, the closer we get to the point where we will find out if an economic system premised upon endless growth is viable in a world of finite resources.

Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Catton's book can be distilled down to the idea that over the next few centuries, the idea of limitless growth will be revealed to be a dangerous sham that has ill-prepared us for reality without infinite cheap fossil fuels.

Basically, I accuse Catton of building a strawman argument by extrapolating the course that the USA was on in 1973 out into the indefinite future and declaring that we humans will not change course even if it leads to disaster or potentially even extinction. This is a ridiculous argument, and the reason why I feel comfortable dismissing it after only 43 years is because we have already made very meaningful changes to the problems Catton identified and altered our trajectory in that time. As I keep bringing up, solar and wind are now cost-competitive with gas. This is a titanic change from the world Catton inhabited. And we are already adding more solar and wind generation capacity than gas!

Do you think that this process is going to stall out or something? To me, it really seems that this fundamentally challenges the fossil fuel leg of Catton's argument. If so, that leaves only the "infinite growth is impossible" leg, making it much more obvious and weak argument.

[MediumTex]

Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Catton's book can be distilled down to the idea that over the next few centuries, the idea of limitless growth will be revealed to be a dangerous sham that has ill-prepared us for reality without infinite cheap fossil fuels.

Yes, I think that's a good summary.

Basically, I accuse Catton of building a strawman argument by extrapolating the course that the USA was on in 1973 out into the indefinite future and declaring that we humans will not change course even if it leads to disaster or potentially even extinction.

I don't think it was just the 1973 course, but rather the entire 20th century course.

I think that Catton would say that humans WILL change course, but that it might happen later rather than sooner.

This is a ridiculous argument, and the reason why I feel comfortable dismissing it after only 43 years is because we have already made very meaningful changes to the problems Catton identified and altered our trajectory in that time. As I keep bringing up, solar and wind are now cost-competitive with gas.

Next up is the scalability problem.  Even if solar and wind are cost competitive as niche applications, they would not be cost competitive if you tried to scale them up beyond niche applications because you would start to run into all sorts of problems like scarcity of rare earth materials, the environmental damage associated with wind turbines, the down time when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, etc.

This is a titanic change from the world Catton inhabited. And we are already adding more solar and wind generation capacity than gas!

In Catton's time renewables were a niche segment of the energy market, and they are still a niche today.  When electricity generation is 30% wind and 30% solar, the world you are describing will have arrived, but not when it's closer to 3% and 3%, which is where we are today.

Do you think that this process is going to stall out or something? To me, it really seems that this fundamentally challenges the fossil fuel leg of Catton's argument. If so, that leaves only the "infinite growth is impossible" leg, making it much more obvious and weak argument.

It won't stall out.  It will simply start to bump into things like lack of suitable places to build more wind turbines and solar farms, the fact that battery technology still isn't all that great when it comes to using electricity for transportation, the fact that planes will always be fossil fueled, the need for fossil fuel inputs for modern agriculture, etc.

The bottom line is that I just don't think we will be able to concentrate solar energy as intensely as Mother Nature has done for us in the compacted ancient organic material that we know as fossil fuels.  We think we can, and maybe we can, but I think it will be more like the comparison of a human hand and a prosthetic hand.  The latter will never have the elegance of the former.

All I would suggest is that people put Catton's arguments on their short list of serious threats to our way of life that could present themselves within our lifetimes.  If it turns out that energy isn't that big of a deal and solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc. can gradually replace fossil fuels, then good for us as humans.  If, however, it turns out that an economic system premised on continual growth will eventually bump into hard ecological limits, then we are going to have some tough times to deal with at some point in the future.

Interestingly, von Mises touched on this topic in a very brief way in Human Action.  What he said was basically that he could imagine resource constraints pinching economic growth at some point in the future, but that it would be a long long time before anything like that happened, and basically left it at that.

Remember, too, that expensive oil is basically the same as expensive alternative energy sources.  What the world needs is cheap energy for business as usual.  In 2008, we found out how the world economy responds to expensive energy (e.g., $150 per barrel oil)--everything basically shut down until the price of energy fell to levels where things could function profitably again.

The relationship between energy prices and the financial markets is really fascinating.  Basically, the premise behind all debt is that people and businesses will have more money in the future than they have today, but this premise has certain energy input assumptions built into it, and once those assumptions are invalidated through experience, the entire rationale for debt starts to fall apart as well.  In a post-peak oil world, many believe that the only reasonable assumption will be that people will have less surplus in the future than they have today, since the cost of energy inputs will be higher at almost every level of production.

[BearBones]

Great discussion! Keep going...

[Pointedstick]

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-a ... 35/411813/

Solar and wind comprise 61% of 2015 capacity additions, gas contributes 35%

Capacity additions in the United States slowed last year, but renewable generation made up more than half of the 14,468 MW completed in 2015, according to an analysis by SNL Energy.

Wind accounted for 47% of new generation capacity, followed by natural gas (35%) and solar (14%).

Last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted that capacity additions would begin to slow, and from 2018 to 2024 the agency believes additions will average less than 4 GW annually.

And take a look at this:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazar ... sis-90.pdf

[img width=650]https://i.imgur.com/9ahpCCD.png[/img]

Observe how the only fossil fuel that still has the potential to be cheaper than any of the renewables is combined-cycle natural gas, and it is already being beaten out by wind in many markets.



I hear what you're saying about things like limited landmass available for wind and solar plants, rare earth metals being rare and the like. It is true by definition that nothing is literally limitless. But Catton is (was) much more worried by the overshoot. Not as much by the limitation of human carrying capacity but the fact that he believes we've overshot it with fossil fuels.

After 10 or 20 years of new capacity being more renewable than fossil-fueled, and with the closure of old fossil burners and replacement with this cleaner, more renewable new capacity, that overshoot is going to shrink. It already is. As renewables come to make up more and more of the grid--they already are--the overshoot will diminish and eventually disappear. And with no overshoot, there's really no problem; no mass die-off, no destruction of the standard of living, nothing traumatic like that. We can live with a limited carrying capacity. Cotton acknowledged that we did just that before fossil fuels. Population growth will fall, real estate will become expensive, things like that. That's basically Japan! We humans can clearly manage.

The growth of renewable fuel sources as economically competitive with fossil-burners gives me great hope, honestly. It's not a theory. It's happening before our very eyes.