Exponential growth.

"Exponential Growth"; a concept human beings will never appreciate nor fully understand. It is the process of accumulating very rapid growth in a short period of time, for instance:

2 x 2 = 4

However a simple calculation such as 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 64

We can see how by multiplying such small numbers together, we soon rack up some very big numbers indeed.

Here's another example. Just supposing we have a bank account that pays 5% interest per year.

We invest £100.

At the end of year one we have our original £100 + £5 interest giving us a balance of £105

Year two we take the £105 balance then add 5% interest (£5.25) which gives us £110.25. We continue the process as follows.

Year 3 £110.25 @ 5% interest = £115.76
Year 4 £115.76 @ 5% interest = £121.54
Year 5 £121.54 @ 5% interest = £127.62
Year 6 £127.63 @ 5% interest = £134.00
Year 7 £134.00 @5% interest = £140.70
Year 8 £140.70 @5% interest = £ 147.74
Year 9 £147.74 @ 5% interest = £155.13
Year 10 £155.13 @5% interest = £162.90
Year 11 £162.90 @5% interest = £171.05
Year 12 £171.05 @ 5% interest = £179.60
Year 13 £179.60 @5% interest = £188.58
Year 14 £188.85 @5% interest = £198.01
Year 15 £198.01 @5% interest = £207.91

So we can see that after 15 years of a modest 5% interest per year, our initial sum has doubled. This is called "compound interest" and it shows exponential growth by increasing a number by a percentage, then increasing the sum of the original number plus that percentage by another percentage and so on.

A 7% increase per year will mean the initial sum will double in 10 years.

If we take a 10% increase then the initial sum will double in roughly 7 years.

And, whether the timespan is years or days or centuries, the doubling will be the same pro rata.


So we can see that exponential growth has the potential to cause huge problems. Here are another couple of examples.


A headline saying a prison population will grow by 7% per year doesn't mean much, but saying a prison population will double in 10 years really hits home; and yet they mean the same thing.

The world economy doubles roughly every 28 years (about 3% per year), so exponential growth on a finite planet is impossible. Consequently, we will struggle to meet demands for raw materials very soon.

So when a politician talks about "economic growth at 3%" we feel this isn't a huge amount, but after 30 years it has the potential to double in size.

Another good example of exponential growth.

A bacteria sitting in a bottle doubles every minute and by 12 O'Clock the bottle is full. At what point is the bottle half full? 11:59 of course. The bacteria realise there is a problem at 11:57, when the bottle is just an eighth full and find a further three empty bottles. All that new space they breathe a sigh of relief, but at what point will all four bottles be full? 12:00 bottle one is full, 12:01 bottle 2 is now full and by 12:02 all four bottles are now full.


So how does this apply to us today?

Well, quite simply, we can see that in a short space of time with today's use of resources, exponential growth is a serious problem. Whatever sector you choose, the increases are dramatic. Population is a great example. The world population hit 1 billion in 1804. From the beginning of time until 1804, we only had an increase to 1 billion. Then in a mere 123 years to 1927 we hit 2 billion. Then it took just 33 years to hit 3 billion in 1960, then a mere 40 years to double from 3 billion to 6 billion people in 1999.

That is an exceptional statistic, and should make anyone pay attention to exponential growth.


But why did the population hit so high so quickly?

Some argue that it's advances in medical technology; some that it's the "green revolution" which was the use of mechanization and fertilisers in agriculture, but either way, this all has a common factor. The abundance of cheap fossil fuel energy.

We began to use coal in the 18th century as a fuel, which then gave rise to steam engines and hydraulics. The amount of energy packed in a sack of coal is phenominal, and inventions utilising this energy came thick and fast. Up until this point, we used animals to assist us with agriculture, but of course they are of limited use; the main problen being they get tired and can become ill.

Fossil fuels meant a machine could run indefinitely, and obediently. Even today we have steam engines still running that were built almost150 years ago.

When mechanization in agriculture increased the amount of food we could grow, consume and move around, and medicines based on petroleum products improved our healthcare, we had created the perfect storm for rapid population expansion.

Medicines dependent on oil? Yes indeed:

"Petrochemicals are used to manufacture analgesics, antihistamines, antibiotics, antibacterials, rectal suppositories, cough syrups, lubricants, creams, ointments, salves, and many gels. Processed plastics made with oil are used in heart valves and other esoteric medical equipment.

Petrochemicals are used in radiological dyes and films, intravenous tubing, syringes, and oxygen masks. In all but rare instances, fossil fuels heat and cool buildings and supply electricity. Ambulances and helicopter "life flights" depend on petroleum, as do personnel who travel to and from medical workplaces in motor vehicles. Supplies and equipment are shipped -- often from overseas -- in petroleum-powered carriers. In addition there are the subtle consequences of fossil fuel reliance."

http://www.alternet.org/health/57525

So it is safe to come to the conclusion, that thanks to fossil fuels, we live longer, multiply faster and eat more. And the more we increase the population, the more need for more "stuff" and the more need for jobs, houses, money etc etc etc.

So applying common sense to this scenario, what is the only thing that could halt this exponential existence?

Expensive fossil fuels. A decrease in the amount of fossil fuel available will increase the price which will put it out of reach for many people and many production systems. And oil is involved in everything that makes our world economy tick. Reduce the use of oil through either lack of it, rationing, price increases, in fact any way at all, and the world will begin a decline.

How does exponential growth apply to all this?

What goes up, must come down or so the saying goes. And as well as exponential growth, we also have exponential decline. If we double our economy by using 5% more fossil fuels every year, then the same occurs in reverse. If we lose 5% of our oil availabilty per year, then in just 15 years our oil supply has halved. Halving the oil supply means halving the economy, the abundance of food and probably sacariest of all, half the world population.

We currently increase our demand for oil by 2% per year, a tiny amount you may say, but remember those exponential growth figures? That means that in 35 years, we will have doubled the demand for oil at todays rate. If we cannot meet demand and the amount of oil we take out of the ground begins to decline, then the combination of 2% demand and 2% decline means that in a mere 17 years we will only be able to meet half the demand. This is potentially the most dangerous scenario human kind has ever faced.

Alternative energy - moving from fossil fuels.

Many people would argue that the increase in clean energy negates the increase in demand for fossil fuels. In simple terms, if we increase alternative energy sources by 2% per year then that will counteract the increase in demand for oil. Is it that simple?

Unfortunately not and for a number of reasons.

Firstly, that will only keep us at todays current consumption of approximately 85 million barrels per day or 40,000 gallons per second. In order to eat into that figure, we need to increase the alternative energy figure dramatically, however we have another problem.

Whilst wind turbines, solar arrays, hydro etc are wonderful concepts, our infrastructure depends on oil. There are no mass produced solar tractors, no electric sawmills; you get the idea. In fact, even if there were, we still need oil to make all the components that create wind turbines, solar arrays and electric cars. As an example, a single rubber car tyre takes 40 litres of oil to make and we haven't included the oil used to ship it, fit it or even repair it if we get a puncture.

Clean energy is unfortunately a folly in the current paradigm of the 21st century.

The answer?

There isn't one unfortunately. We can be sure of two things. 1) because of history, we know that the earth can sustain a human population of 1 billion and 2) oil is a finite resource. It may never "run out" but it will shift from a cheap energy to a very expensive energy, the questions are when, and how quickly?

My advice would be to prepare yourself as best you can. Get used to cheaper food, demand less "stuff" and start to learn basic skills.

As I have mentioned earlier, even if we could introduce alternative energy immediately, almost every product demands the use of oil, especially platics. So that new wind turbine needs a factory to create spare parts, and that requires a workforce, which require food and housing, which requires mechanized agriculture. I think we can see the problem is very clear.

So beware of exponential growth, because it creeps up like the tide on the beach and will catch us all by surprise very soon indeed.

Best regards to you and those you love.

Kieran.

The Starkest Warning

Whilst governments around the world are starting to wake up to the threat of increased oil prices, US President Obama grasps the nettle and gives his starkest warning from the Oval Office. It must be noted that addresses from the Oval Office are reserved for the most serious events; this is President Obama's first.

"So one of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we've talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we've already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation -- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill -- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses."

There is no doubt that the world's public are being groomed to accept a very near future without cheap oil. I will come to the choices you, as an individual, may have in a moment, but for the time being, we need to examine the urgency of this message. Whilst the president hasn't said explicitly we are at "Peak Oil", the inference is clear. We would not be risking the envirnoment, or stretching technology to its limit, unless we were running short of cheap oil.

And do remember; the difference between cheap oil and expensive oil is simple. You and I, in our daily lives, depend on cheap oil to live, however our taxes will be paying for expensive oil to keep the fossil fuel paradigm moving. Armies, emergency services, government, public transport all depend on oil (not cheap oil), because these will be needed until the final barrel is removed from the ground. That final barrel will be worth billions of dollars, and it's the transition in price from now to then that we need to be concrened about as tax-paying citizens.

Technology

Probably one of the most important message given by the US President is the limits to technology. The skeptics of Peak Oil will constantly push the theory that technology is our saviour and that we (peak oil proponents), forget to note that as time moves forward, technology and science does too. We will continually find new ways to search, find, extract and process oil in the future, so there is no peak oil theory. However, the US President has noted, and I quote "This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time", so the reality is:

Can technology keep pace with the time of transition?

This is the key factor, because whether is searching for oil, or finding replacements for oil such as algae, bio-fuels, wind farms, solar arrays etc, these need to be in place when that last barrel of cheap oil is extracted. If they are not, then we transition from cheap oil to expensive oil very quickly. How quickly? Well let's take a look at the past.


Fuel Transitions

The first fuel was probably wood. I don't think we could doubt very much that early mankind used wood to keep warm, cook and ward off predators. Ancient religions worshipped fire because it was essential to life. Further from that, we used water mills, wind mills, horses, donkeys, all these contributed to our need for energy. Coal is known to have been used for fuel as far back as 200BC, and accelerated dramaticallyduring the Industrial Revolution in the 19th Century. This transition was fast because coal was (and still is) so plentiful. It is reported that there are still a couple of centuries worth of coal yet to be mined. So the transition from wood to coal was easy, and we can see the benefits of that in a couple of easy points.

1) World population from the beginning of man to 1804 - 0 to 1 billion, then from 1804 - 1927 2 billion, then on to 3 billion in 1960, but the figure most startling is 3 billion to 6 billion by 1999. That's less than 40 years, 3 billion people added. This is due to fossil fuels in agriculture, albeit machinery and easy, cheap movement (including refrigeration) of food which allowed our cities to expand dramatically. We could build on the various "market gardens" in London (Covent Garden, Moor Fields, Bethnal Green etc) because we could move food into towns quickly using fast vehicles before it had the chance to go rotten on th back of a cart.

2) Economically we have found new wealth thanks to cheap energy. If you had to push a truck 100 miles, full of food physically using human beings, how many would it take, how long would it take and how much would you have to pay them? This is extreme because we would probably use horses, but only because they require cheap food and no money. If we had to feed horses in Beluga Caviar we wouldn;t be using them! We can assume that it would take weeks to pull the truck along the road using hundreds of people, all wanting payment of some kind and food. And yet cheap oil allowed us to do it in hours, for about 100 dollars (fuel $30, driver $70). So the potato you sell at the end of the journey only has to include a tiny percentage of the fuel it has cost to get it there.

There is no fuel today that can make the transition from oil painless. That is the reality of the situation we are in. We consume 85 million barrels worldwide every... single... day. Imagine the bio fuel rapeseed crop we would need, and the amount of wind turbines, solar arrays, algae...

And it's not just production. Just supposing we do find that all the clean energy we need, we need to move it around. The mining of copper that makes the wires that feeds our technology such as computers, overhead cabling etc has to be dug out of the ground, and those machines that dig and process need oil. There are no electric bulldozers, nor are there any companies with plans to make any. When the coal for the power stations is mined, it needs to be shipped... in fact everything needs to be shipped. We're only just looking at electric cars, never mind electric trucks that we need to move all that food around.

Transition is not a "wake up on Monday and everything works thanks to alternative fuels", it's a slow painful process which the vast majority of people will find very difficult. There will always be food at the supermarket, but will you have a job to get the money to be able to afford it? Remember the potato on our truck pulled 100 miles?

The change will be very quick. How many times has a phone rung and the split second before it's answered your world is at peace, then within a moment you are confronted with devastating news that at best ruins your day, at worst changes the rest of your life. Phone ring, knock at the door, news report. Change can happen quickly, and whilst many things we cannot prepare for, some things we can mitigate the initial shock which will make us think clearly.


Opinion

It is my opinion that we are being given a very clear warning. However, it must be noted (and I can hear some of you reading this thinkin it), that this is not the first time a US President has warned about a shortage of oil. Jimmy Carter first made a simlar speech (text version) in 1979 after the oil crisis which crippled the US fuel supplies. However the difference here was that many OPEC oil fields not been online for very long and there were new "elephant fields" being discovered all the time. When a news report mentions the discovery of a new oil field remember a couple of things:

1) An oil field, from time of discovery until time of actually taking oil out of the ground for refining, takes a minimum of 3 years.

2) We use 85 million barrels per day so a field containing an estimated 1 billion barrels will last approximately 11 days. So why do oil companies bother to look and extract such a short supply of oil? Because they know, by the time that field is online, the price ber barrel will be much higher than today. Remember cheap oil and expensive oil? When a field has trillions of barrels, it's still worthwhile taking out of the ground at a much cheaper price because there's so much to extract.

3) Oil companies continue to trumpet "huge" finds because if they don't investors will move their money elsewhere. Therefore, if an oil company is quoting "proven reserves" do remember it's in their interest to show how successful they are. I take these figures with a pinch of salt.

4) The BP disaster has shown us that we are now needing to drill in difficult places. If there is so much oil still around, why are they bothering? In fact, Royal Dutch Shell plc and Exxon Mobil have just reopened an old field in Holland (Reuters).

Do not have any doubt. If over the next few months you see oil constantly on your television screens, especially if it has little to do directly with the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, you need to take serious notice. US Presidents do not make these speeches unless there is a serious need to do so. It is their duty in public office to inform the US public if there is a threat to their way of life.

Tin Foil Hat

This comment is purely conjecture and a personal opinion. I have labelled it Tin Foil Hat because it has no evidnce or basis of truth, however I feel it is worthy of note.

I mentioned on a previous blog elsewhere about two weeks ago that the BP event in the Gulf was "the new 9/11". The US President thinks so too. We all know that 9/11 changed the world forever. It has been quoted as the "New Pearl Harbor" event which changed American foreign policy as well as the world at large. This is beyond doubt. Some may be of the opinion that this event focussed the US public to accept the threat of terrorism, and allow legislation ("The US Patriot Act") to be implemented to protect them. It is well documented elsewhere in the web that civil liberties have possibly been eroded thanks to this Act, I'll leave that up to you to decide.

So bearing in mind that huge events can change public opinion is it possible that:

1) This pipeline was sabotaged to implement a new acceptance of restricted oil use.

2) The era of cheap oil is now over, and the Gulf spill was necessary to introduce a new Clean Energy Act in the near future? An Act where oil products will be restricted, rationed or taxed to pay for new energy projects ( "A Transition")

Thank you for reading, I will post again when I have time or events dictate.

Kieran (UK). June 16th 2010