Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Hindmost]

I think you mistyped "bi" fro "tri" in at least one place

EIA annually estimates recoverable coal reserves by adjusting the DRB to reflect accessibility and recovery rates in mining. As of January 1, 2009, EIA estimated that the remaining U.S. recoverable coal reserves totaled over 261 billion short tons (a short ton is a unit of weight equal to 2,000 pounds), from a demonstrated reserve base of 488 billion short tons.

Recoverable coal reserves at producing mines represent the quantity of coal that can be recovered (i.e. mined) from existing coal reserves at reporting mines. These reserves essentially reflect the working inventory at producing mines. In 2008, the recoverable reserves at producing mines were 17.9 billion short tons. EIA conducts an annual survey to gather and report the quantity of recoverable coal reserves at producing mines

I could have missed something, but the above is cut and pasted out of the EIA website. NOTE: I should have indicated the US uses about one billion tons per year however.

glenn

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in any of the replies so far is the idea that the Internet won't simply decline due to a direct lack of energy, but due to a lack of ability to maintain its infrastructure in a "post-peak" world. This would include the maintenance of satellites in outer space, remote fiber optic cables, cell phone towers, etc. If, as some contend, we'll have a hard enough time maintaining roads, it's unlikely we'll be able to maintain communication satellites and extensive networks of cables to every region of the U.S., let alone the world.

All of which would mean that it's great that emails and so forth only require minute amounts of power, but the maintenance of the industrial complex required to keep the entire system running on a reliable basis requires much more. To paraphrase James Kunstler, a well-known peak oil writer and an extremist in his prognostications, we aren't going to be running Walt Disney world on wind power. The same holds true for the space launches that are the only way to maintain the satellites that are of vital importance to the widespread availability of the Internet, or the cables and wires spanning hundreds of miles of inhospitable terrain in godforsaken lands.

This is why calculations of how much electricity an "e-newspaper" uses are somewhat misleading. They love to factor in every last bit of energy used in the production of ink and paper, down to the chainsaw or axe used to chop the tree, but I never see them include any such attention to the mines and factories necessary to produce the circuitboards in the device the "e-newspaper" will be read on. Perhaps because this would reveal the absurdity of the comparison.

 

[Brian-M]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in any of the replies so far is the idea that the Internet won't simply decline due to a direct lack of energy, but due to a lack of ability to maintain its infrastructure in a "post-peak" world. This would include the maintenance of satellites in outer space, remote fiber optic cables, cell phone towers, etc. If, as some contend, we'll have a hard enough time maintaining roads, it's unlikely we'll be able to maintain communication satellites and extensive networks of cables to every region of the U.S., let alone the world.

That's a good point. The internet could break up into a number of smaller geographically isolated parts. Americans, for example, would be able to view websites and send/receive email originating in North America, but wouldn't be able to access websites or email in places like England or Africa.

But fiber-optic cables on land are easy enough to maintain, so the internet could still function to some degree.

If it ever gets to the point that energy is so scarce that the internet cannot be maintained, I'd be more worried about where the energy for growing, harvesting, processing and delivering the food for my next meal will be coming from, and how I'll be able to earn adequate money in a world where the majority of industries have collapsed due to energy constraints, so that I'll be able afford what little food does become available.

This is why calculations of how much electricity an "e-newspaper" uses are somewhat misleading. They love to factor in every last bit of energy used in the production of ink and paper, down to the chainsaw or axe used to chop the tree, but I never see them include any such attention to the mines and factories necessary to produce the circuitboards in the device the "e-newspaper" will be read on. Perhaps because this would reveal the absurdity of the comparison.

Strangely, you never see them "include any such attention" to the mines and factories needed to produce the printing press and delivery trucks necessary for printed newspapers either.

 

[TFian]

Sorry for the late reply, but I've been busy with a few things.

First @ the claims we have an abundant source of coal available. I'm not sure where these claims come from. It seems when tallying all the evidence, we have at best until around 2040-50 until we "peak" coal. It seems it's somewhat in dispute, but as the wikipedia page on peak coal suggests.

The estimates for global peak coal production vary wildly. Many coal associations suggest the peak could occur in 200 years or more, while scholarly estimates predict the peak to occur as early as 2010. Research in 2009 by the University of Newcastle in Australia concluded that global coal production could peak sometime between 2010 and 2048.[3] Global coal reserve data is generally of poor quality and is often biased towards the high side.[4] Collective projections generally predict that global peak coal production may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case scenario, depending on future coal production rates.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal

Sources a plenty provided on the wikipedia article.

We also have to keep in mind we're peaking on a bunch of other sources. Copper, natural gas, helium, etc. A good book on this subject is "Peak Everything" by Professor Richard Heinberg.

Second

I agree, and I think the internet will continue to be the most efficient way to do many things.

That does not mean the internet will survive energy contraction just because it's the most "efficient" way of many things. That's the illogical mindset of "Abudance", as Sir Archdruid John Michael Greer puts it. In a world of abundance, sure, your argument holds weight, in a world of contracting resources, it does not.

Don't confuse low-tech with low-cost.

For example, the total cost -- whether in energy, labor, materials, and what-not -- of treating polio victims dwarfs the total cost of vaccinating against polio.

How are vaccines low tech?

It sure is, but we are discussing the basis of an energy contraction.

Yes I know, but as I said before, the question is whether it will contract out of existence one day, not if it will contract first.

As already noted, "energy" is not limited to oil, and the way your source talks about energy obscures the role of electricity. There are many ways to generate electricity that don't rely on oil or other fossil fuels.

Your source is also assuming that in the meantime, we aren't doing anything about our energy infrastructure. Fortunately, people are not immobilized like deer in the headlights, peak oil or no peak oil. We are building new electric-generation infrastructure that uses renewable resources. Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with recent developments:

World's Largest Wind Project is Underway In California: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/worlds-largest-wind-project-is-underway.html

Engineers race to design world's biggest offshore wind turbines: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/engineers-race-to-design-worlds-biggest.html

Africa’s Biggest Windfarm Debuts in Morocco: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/africas-biggest-windfarm-debuts-in.html

1,000-Megawatt Plant in Calif. Marks New Milestone in Solar Expansion: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/1000-megawatt-plant-in-calif-marks-new.html

Pike research: Solar To Hit Grid Parity by 2013: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/pike-research-solar-to-hit-grid-parity.html

Solar's Great Leap Forward: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/06/solars-great-leap-forward.html

Spain - A Solar Thermal Powerhouse: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/07/spain-solar-thermal-powerhouse.html

The Race For Smart Grids: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/race-for-smart-grids.html

Hot rocks and high hopes: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/09/hot-rocks-and-high-hopes.html

Asia powers into renewable energy: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/08/asia-powers-into-renewable-energy.html

More at that blog, which simply forwards articles from larger media, including the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Economist, and the Guardian. It's a useful collection point for renewable energy news. I recommend it to you as a reminder that we are not doomed.

Yeah, I know of Big Gav, in fact, you pointed him my way before. The biggest problem I see with Big Gav though, is he thinks we can just go about "business as usual" on renewables, which is just patently false. Our industrial civilization requires cheap easy liquid fuels. Nothing less will do. Also, his blog has yet to find the "silver bullet" that will make renewables cost competitive, if you've noticed.

After reading a bit more about (and by) John Greer -- "the Archdruid" in OP, -- I've come to conclusion that he WANTS civilization to be doomed, and willfully ignores all evidence to the contrary because contiuation of industrial society is just repugnant to him. He assumes people ARE immobilized like deer in the headlights, because if they are not, then he is irrelevant.

Or worse, he is just a hypocritical doom-monger who keeps writing books on his computer and cashing checks in an airconditioned bank.

And where did you come up with that assertion? I'd like to see you back it up. That's borderline defaming of a public figure. You're making him sound self deluded or a scam artist, which is simply not true. Why would you do that?

Strangely, you never see them "include any such attention" to the mines and factories needed to produce the printing press and delivery trucks necessary for printed newspapers either.

Why would we need trucks to deliver such newspapers? Couldn't we do it circa pre industrial ways via an agrarian civilization?

Also what doghouse said. How are we going to maintain the ways/infastructure needed to maintain the internet without abudant fossil fuels? Why wouldn't we go back to the more feasible agrarian civilization model?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

That does not mean the internet will survive energy contraction just because it's the most "efficient" way of many things. That's the illogical mindset of "Abudance", as Sir Archdruid John Michael Greer puts it. In a world of abundance, sure, your argument holds weight, in a world of contracting resources, it does not.

It seems to me to be the mindset of scarcity. The logic goes like this: When scarcity of a resource (energy) constrains two methods (paper vs. electronics) of doing the same thing (retaining knowledge), the method that is the least dependant on that resource will be retained.

The argument is then that electronics is the more energy conserving method. I think that's a given at this point. Further, electronic technology hasn't reached its energy conservation optimum (as we are in energy abundance for now), so the equation can only grow more in favour of electronics.

I think nobody would argue that the keeping and transfer of knowledge is not essential, and will be given up in, say, an agrarian society.

So, if energy really will be the deciding factor, books will go first. Whether that means keeping the internet in its current form is difficult to say.

How are vaccines low tech?

I think the point is that a vaccine is high tech, but much less wasteful than the low tech solution of treating the sick after the fact. Thus, high tech can conserve resources by doing things smarter.

 

[TFian]

It seems to me to be the mindset of scarcity. The logic goes like this: When scarcity of a resource (energy) constrains two methods (paper vs. electronics) of doing the same thing (retaining knowledge), the method that is the least dependant on that resource will be retained.

The argument is then that electronics is the more energy conserving method. I think that's a given at this point. Further, electronic technology hasn't reached its energy conservation optimum (as we are in energy abundance for now), so the equation can only grow more in favour of electronics.

I think nobody would argue that the keeping and transfer of knowledge is not essential, and will be given up in, say, an agrarian society.

So, if energy really will be the deciding factor, books will go first. Whether that means keeping the internet in its current form is difficult to say.



I think the point is that a vaccine is high tech, but much less wasteful than the low tech solution of treating the sick after the fact. Thus, high tech can conserve resources by doing things smarter.

Electronics may not be the most energy conserving method. Did you read Doghouse's post?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Electronics may not be the most energy conserving method. Did you read Doghouse's post?

Yes, I read them all.

Comparing the current internet to current printed material is one thing. But try for a moment disregarding the most wasteful infrastructure (which I agree is driven by abundance for both methods). Ignore for a moment the percieved need for daily news in a traditional newspaper format, not to mention up-to the-minute current news. Leave out global access to "social networking" and idle timewasters like web video and online games.

The most efficient way of storing knowledge would still be electronic. Given resource constraints, you'd still choose an electronic library over a paper one, even if that'd mean that there'd be one device per ten thousand citizens, and you'd have to crank it to read anything.

Yes, in that assessment is factored device costs. I may of course be wrong, but to me it's a no-brainer that energy-optimal electronics is way cheaper than energy-optimal paper.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The same holds true for the space launches that are the only way to maintain the satellites that are of vital importance to the widespread availability of the Internet, or the cables and wires spanning hundreds of miles of inhospitable terrain in godforsaken lands.

The Internet would run just fine without satellites.

You're probably right to expect disruptions in land forsaken by deities.

 

[TFian]

The Internet would run just fine without satellites.

You're probably right to expect disruptions in land forsaken by deities.

How so?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How so?

Did you read Doghouse Reilly's post?

 

[TFian]

Did you read Doghouse Reilly's post?

Yes..., now how *could* the Internet survive just fine without satellites?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes..., now how *could* the Internet survive just fine without satellites?

Sorry, I thought you were asking about Doghouse Reilly's "godforsaken lands".

I've been using the Internet and its predecessors since 1975. The use of satellites for Internet connections is a recent development, and remains inconsequential for the bulk of the Internet. The gradual degradation of satellite communications that would occur as satellites fall out of service would inconvenience mobile users who connect to the Internet via satellites, but the Internet per se would hardly even notice their loss.

 

[TFian]

Sorry, I thought you were asking about Doghouse Reilly's "godforsaken lands".

I've been using the Internet and its predecessors since 1975. The use of satellites for Internet connections is a recent development, and remains inconsequential for the bulk of the Internet. The gradual degradation of satellite communications that would occur as satellites fall out of service would inconvenience mobile users who connect to the Internet via satellites, but the Internet per se would hardly even notice their loss.

No problem on the mistake.

So I'm guessing you were around during the USENET days? (or at least when it was prevalent). I'm not sure how it worked by then. How was the network interconnected? Did they just use phone lines?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, I know the internet will not be shut down *right away*, the question is will contraction eventually shut the internet off. "Certainly not right away" would indicate it would shut down eventually.

Yes, it will shut down eventually, probably shortly after food production and water distribution.

No, I know what you're saying. But that doesn't stop it from being shut down in the future, because of energy contraction.

Any "energy contraction" that necessitated the internet being shut down would also be (a) an extinction-level event and (b) physically impossible prior to the heat-death of the Universe.

Well, he said people would be going to the libraries to USE the internet, because they couldn't afford it themselves anymore, not as a replacement for the internet (at least not right away). Are you sure there'd be no energy for making paper? We made paper for far longer than we had electricity...

Paper books would require substantially more energy to produce and distribute than would be used to perform the same task via the internet.

 

[TFian]

Yes, it will shut down eventually, probably shortly after food production and water distribution.


Any "energy contraction" that necessitated the internet being shut down would also be (a) an extinction-level event and (b) physically impossible prior to the heat-death of the Universe.


Paper books would require substantially more energy to produce and distribute than the would be used to perform the same task via the internet.

What do you mean that it's impossible prior to essentially "the end of the Universe"?? What??

@ your claim about Paper books requiring more energy, others have made that claim, but it might not be true. Check out Doghouse's comment.

 

[PixyMisa]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in any of the replies so far is the idea that the Internet won't simply decline due to a direct lack of energy, but due to a lack of ability to maintain its infrastructure in a "post-peak" world. This would include the maintenance of satellites in outer space, remote fiber optic cables, cell phone towers, etc. If, as some contend, we'll have a hard enough time maintaining roads, it's unlikely we'll be able to maintain communication satellites and extensive networks of cables to every region of the U.S., let alone the world.

Fiber optic cables, satellites, and cell towers are a lot cheaper to maintain than roads.

All of which would mean that it's great that emails and so forth only require minute amounts of power, but the maintenance of the industrial complex required to keep the entire system running on a reliable basis requires much more. To paraphrase James Kunstler, a well-known peak oil writer and an extremist in his prognostications, we aren't going to be running Walt Disney world on wind power.

Actually, Disney World is precisely the sort of thing that could run on wind power with little impact. It's industrial use that would be the problem - so we use nuclear power for that.

The same holds true for the space launches that are the only way to maintain the satellites that are of vital importance to the widespread availability of the Internet

Only a tiny fraction of internet bandwidth is carried by satellite. If all the satellites fell out of the sky tomorrow, most users wouldn't notice at all.

or the cables and wires spanning hundreds of miles of inhospitable terrain in godforsaken lands.

Which just sit there and work.

And have built-in redundancy.

And distributed redundancy as well.

This is why calculations of how much electricity an "e-newspaper" uses are somewhat misleading.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

What do you mean that it's impossible prior to essentially "the end of the Universe"?? What??

There's energy all over the place. We're drowning in the stuff. It doesn't take much at all to run the internet, given the technological level we've already achieved.

If we are looking solely at energy requirements, every other part of civilisation would collapse first.

@ your claim about Paper books requiring more energy, others have made that claim, but it might not be true. Check out Doghouse's comment.

He's wrong.

 

[Roboramma]

How are vaccines low tech?

They aren't. I believe that was the point.

 

[ZirconBlue]

First @ the claims we have an abundant source of coal available. I'm not sure where these claims come from. It seems when tallying all the evidence, we have at best until around 2040-50 until we "peak" coal. It seems it's somewhat in dispute, but as the wikipedia page on peak coal suggests.

I don't think you understand what "peak" means. That's the point of maximum production, not the point at which we run out.

Our industrial civilization requires cheap easy liquid fuels.

No, it doesn't. It requires relatively cheap energy. If operating gas/diesel vehicles becomes prohibitively expensive, Electric vehicles will start to take over.

Nothing less will do. Also, his blog has yet to find the "silver bullet" that will make renewables cost competitive, if you've noticed.

There are two ways to make renewables "cost competitive":

A) Reduce the cost of production of renewable energy. This is happening. For the same power output, solar panels are much cheaper now than they were a decade ago.
2) Increase the cost of non-renewables. Some suggest doing this deliberately, through taxation, but, even without that the costs of these energy sources will naturally rise as they become more scarce.

So, at some point the declining cost curve of renewables will intersect the rising cost curve of non-renewables. That's when we'll see a major switch from one to the other.

 

[Tony]

And it seems more and more often I here that "The Earth is making oil faster than we can even find it", that "our reserves of known oil are increasing". So I have doubts about 'peak oil', and know that we have mega tons of coals. So, what energy contraction? Two thousand years hence?

^This.

"Energy contraction" won't be a concern until our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's time. Even then, it is not unrealistic to assume that some other energy source or technology will be available. If "energy contraction" does become an issue in the foreseeable future, it will be because of political and societal ineptitude.