Gail Tverberg: The Coming Energy Depression

As most PeakProsperity.com readers know, we fully agree with the statement: Energy is THE master resource.

Without it, nothing can get done.

Energy analyst and professional actuary Gail Tverberg returns to the podcast this week to revisit the global energy outlook. And fair warning, Gail warns it's quite grim.

To her, it's a simple math problem. We have too many people placing too much demand on the world's depleting energy resources. The cost of energy is rising, which we are compensating for in the short term by using financial gimmicks to make "affordable" -- when all we're really doing is creating future promises that cannot possibly be repaid.

The increasing cost of energy is manifesting in higher prices (for everything, not just fuels) and lower real wages, a divergence she sees only worsening from here. This path leads to another Great Depression-style crisis from which she does not see a clear path out of:

What we really live on is what we pull out of the ground each year, in terms of oil or coal or natural gas or whatever. So what we have is just what we pull out.

Now, you accurately point out that we're making too many claims on the future using debt. We're actually doing this via a couple of different ways, which are pretty much equivalent. One of them is by issuing equity. This has the equivalent effect as using debt because what you're saying is I'll pay you dividends, and you're going to get a higher price in the future. This is simply different kind of claim on the future. Another way to borrow from the future is through government promises. While debt is the one that most people focus on, shares of stock and government promises have the same effect. They all are promising more and more future stuff. So unless we truly have more stuff in the future, we won't be able to make good on these promises.

But oil prices higher than $20 per barrel are putting too much pressure on the economy. The cost of everything goes up at the same time. You use oil to get your metals out because you're using that in your extraction process. Also, the same things that cause oil prices to rise cause natural gas prices and coal prices to rise, too.

So what happens is everything has to go up in cost at the same time. Though people's wages are the one thing that don't. So what happens is they get squeezed. They get squeezed badly, and they start defaulting on their loans; auto loans and student loans first. We probably will soon see more business loans default, too. But it's also the individuals who are getting squeezed the worst. This will only worsen as oil prices rise and as other prices rise, too.

The crisis we're likely to face is going to look like the Great Depression. It's going to look like people being laid off from their obs. It's going to look like banks closing. And it's going to be that kind of crisis.

We simply don't have nearly enough affordable energy to support today's population. This should be very disturbing to every one of us. Apart from taking increasingly desperate short-term measures to put the crisis it off a little bit, it's hard to see a solution.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Gail Tverberg (63m:24s).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/gail-tverberg-the-coming-energy-depression/

The crisis we’re likely to face is going to look like the Great Depression…We simply don’t have nearly enough energy to support today’s population.
The USA is absolutely awash in energy. How do we know? Price. Coal, nuclear, natural gas are all ridiculously cheap, and so much so that technologies like solar and wind are hardly worth pursuing right now. Americans drive and fly today for flat-out trivial reasons because, well, we can. We are energy rich. We don’t even attempt public transport for the same reasons.
The Depression was indeed just like today, though: an oversupply of energy that drives down wages and makes good jobs hard to come by. That’s the real threat, not energy shortage. The US is awash in so many energy options now it’s just a matter of picking which ones to exploit.

MS.GT, you are the most important voice in the world today with regards to our Oil predicament. I was honored to have heard you speak again on the truth facing the world today. Isn’t it humbling to speak the truth yet be reviled for it? I admire and wish you only good health and happier times as you move forward into your life.
Respectfully Given
Peace

Why interview this old granny with her global warming denier views? Running out of energy? She’s nuts!
BTW, those of you who do not understand why it’s very cold in the US despite global warming need to know that it’s cold BECAUSE of global warming!
Jet streams, polar vortex (watch from 12m:30s)
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3796205.htm

“The USA is absolutely awash in energy. How do we know? Price.”
Wow really, we should all believe we are awash in energy just because and only because of the “price”? The word gullible jumps to mind. What about contracts, finances, politics, traeaties, war and a whole bunch of other factors? Who controls price and what’s their agenda? Hmmm maybe price and availability and not necessarily as transparent or as clear cut as you suppose.
Am interested in your data to backup your opinion.
AKGrannyWGrit

Like his cousin Vincent, the Energy Price story is one of horror, nightmares and special effects. Like most of Hollywood, our country’s energy “plays” are over budget, self centered and lacking serious substance. .
If America is awash in energy, why does it spend so much time in the “Killing Fields” of the Middle East?
If the USA were to add The Never Ending Cost of The Never Ending Story of These Never Ending Wars to our true cost of energy, what’s our real “Price” and would it scare us?
If our domestic sources are awash in excess, why do our energy companies’ balance sheets look like Heaven’s Gate instead of Star Wars?
In the end, even Dick Cheney, our Darth Vader on medication, can’t Force his way out of this mess.

The last few minutes of this podcast got me thinking of a great irony in life: Animals leave literal footprints all the time, but few ecological footprints. Humans rarely leave literal footprints (due to being on paved surface most of the time), while leaving a huge ecological imprint.

Long debates about energy between techno cornicopians and doomers are silly. Mostly I’ve notice that memebrs of both groups live nearly identical lives. Same kinds of homes and apartments, same cars (an SUV and a Prius are more alike than they are different,) same flights, same food (Walmart vs. Whole Foods is a cosmetic variation,) same everything.
Personally, I live a plain vanilla regular life too, but I’ve made some modifications. I carry no debt. Not even a mortgage. I’ve super insulated my home room by room over the years and installed a high quality metal roof that reflects heat. The place basiclly doesn’t need mechanical heat or air conditioning anymore. I own a car, but I live in a place where driving isn’t critically necessary and only put about 2,000 miles a year on it. It’s a small town that’s easy and pleasant to navigate on foot and by bicycle without feeling like a loser. And I’ve transformed the half acre yard into a highly productive food garden and preserve the bounty with home canning, etc. https://granolashotgun.com/2016/12/27/how-to-ride-the-slide-suburban-homesteading/
I do these things because I enjoy this kind of life, and because I like knowing that I can ride out any number of serious difficulties if need be. If energy remains plentiful and cheap forever, great! If energy becomes scarce and expensive… shrug.

How interesting that you mention Vincent. One of his movies, Vincent Price that is, was The Fall of The House of Usher (1960). The house was a mansion, big and grand like the US. But as the twin siblings disintegrate and die the house, which we are lead to believe is alive, disintegrates and dies too. There is perhaps a lesson in the story. Oh the story was written by Edgar Allen Poe, 1839, in case anyone is interested.
AKGrannyWGrit

Colorful language…but what does it mean, if anything? I’m an engineer (petroleum) & only facts impress me on energy. America is indeed awash in energy by any country’s standards. This is a fact, a reality. Coal? The world’s largest reserves that sit untouched. Nuclear? We produce 33% of the world’s supply but politics prevent using it. Oil? A huge player by anyone’s view. Natural gas? Again lots of supply options; Alaska has so much they could build a pipeline and fuel our entire nation but NG is too cheap to build the pipeline. We have too much energy!
Now, oil is the liquid fuel that is hard to replace for transportation. But if oil got to $200, we would indeed see coal and nuclear and electric cars. America is just so rich we waste tons of energy and import lots of oil just because we can. But we are NOT energy short. We are energy rich. Period.

Well it’s all a matter of perspective! I was in Alaska before the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, during its construction and rejoiced, like everyone when the oil started flowing. As a matter of fact I have been to Proudhoe Bay, to some of the pump stationed and to the Pipeline terminus. It’s very impressive. The oil is no longer gushing, I have heard it referred to as a trickle. It’s common knowledge up here that if and when that big oil field is targeted to be developed it will take years to get the oil out of the ground and into the pipeline. So what are TPTB waiting for I have no idea. The reality is, it doesn’t matter how much energy there is if you can’t access it, can’t afford it and it’s not developed. It’s like being stranded in a raft on the ocean, there is plenty of water you are surrounded by it, but what to drink?
AKGrannyWGrit

MKI wrote:
Colorful language...but what does it mean, if anything? I'm an engineer (petroleum) & only facts impress me on energy. America is indeed awash in energy by any country's standards. This is a fact, a reality. Coal? The world's largest reserves that sit untouched. Nuclear? We produce 33% of the world's supply but politics prevent using it. Oil? A huge player by anyone's view. Natural gas? Again lots of supply options; Alaska has so much they could build a pipeline and fuel our entire nation but NG is too cheap to build the pipeline. We have too much energy! Now, oil is the liquid fuel that is hard to replace for transportation. But if oil got to $200, we would indeed see coal and nuclear and electric cars. America is just so rich we waste tons of energy and import lots of oil just because we can. But we are NOT energy short. We are energy rich. Period.

Back it up with data, numbers, and actual facts, or else it is a meme, a narrative, or an opinion. The people contributing to this site back up everything they say and post (in articles) with data to support it. If you don’t do so, no one here will take you seriously. Just letting you know.

Ponder: What density is the coal you are quoting as our “massive reserves?” Is it anthracite? Lignite? How costly will it be to extract our supposedly huge liquid oil deposits? How large are those deposits? Why haven’t we drilled them before? WHY would we be fracking (at a loss) if there were wondrous easy oil plays to be had? You might want to read Chris’s recent articles on the oil problem and read his data, then go through and contest it point for point with your own data. That would gain some traction and validity.

I also use logic. An organism will never expend more energy to get energy than it absolutely must - I call it the “lazy law” - because to expend more energy than is needed would be foolish and inefficient; nature is many things, but never inefficient. So if we’re fracking, and that fracking is way more costly than traditional “easy” oil plays would be, that tells me we are monkeys who are much higher up in the tree getting fruit…which tells me there is no more fruit lower down the tree. You, standing there at the bottom of the tree saying their is low-hanging fruit, but without providing any evidence thereof (or data to show you know what you are talking about, other than some easily-made claim of being a petroleum engineer), will not change that.

-Snydeman

… for now

I backed up my position with numbers above. You didn’t, you just demanded answers and made accusations without any basis in fact. You sound foolish and biased. Myself, I have no personal opinion or projections I’m offering, I’m merely dealing with reality as it is.
Fact: America is one of the wealthiest energy-rich nations on the planet. Look it up.
A few more facts, this time about fossil fuels:

  1. Oil prices have recently collapsed from $150 to $60. Some shortage of energy! The sky is falling!
  2. NG prices have collapsed from 4.5 to 2.8; it has fallen 25% in the last year alone.
    CM had this guest on years ago, and I remember shaking my head then, just as crazy as now and has been proven 100% wrong. During that time, I’ve made lots of money taking the absolutely OPPOSITE position. Thank God I didn’t listen to her (or CM). Regarding CM and oil, he’s been so wrong the last few years there is simply nothing to say. The data speaks for itself. This isn’t debatable.
    Now, Art Berman, who also often interviewed on this site (and who is an actual registered petroleum engineer & quite knowledgeable about oil and energy) is excellent on the subject of energy. Makes sense; it’s what he does for a living, he has to stay connected to reality and not get all wrapped up in ideology and wordsmithing. And not suprisingly I’ve never read anything he’s said yet I disagree with. And he would never say something so stupid like the US is “running short of energy”. Simply laughable. But again, he actually works in the real world. And it’s sort of fun to watch Berman squirm when CM goes off the deep end on some crazy Malthusian position on energy in an interview, though…

I agree with some of the basic premises that underpin the discussion here, but…
First, much has been said about the correlation between energy consumption and economic activity, but this has somehow morphed into a causal relationship, which is not the same as correlation. For example, we have lived in an environment of cheap energy for a century and a half now, and have lived in an economy one of whose main characteristics is fractional reserve lending for at least that long. The unanswered questions are

  • Will more costly energy cause the correlation to change?
  • Will more (costly) debt cause the current financial arrangement to change?
I hear what Chris and Gail are saying, but I can't agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions. First, let me just posit that the decline in oil use is likely to be somewhat of a mirror image of its rise. If we take 1859 as the beginning of the oil era, that makes just under 160 years from then until now. If we assume we're somewhere near the peak now, that implies that the oil era will close out sometime around 2180 or or thereabouts. Widespread oil consumption will ramp down somewhat sooner, of course, but certainly not tomorrow. Gail's comments are based almost entirely on the premise that energy consumption patterns will stay pretty much what they are now. This just isn't going to happen. Furthermore, considering only wind power and photovoltaics leaves out huge areas of energy usage that will almost certainly come into focus as energy resources become tighter and more expensive. My guess is that passive solar heating of domestic living spaces and water will become the norm for new construction in temperate climates. Housing insulation will dramatically improve. In tropical and sub-tropical regions, now construction will focus on making use of convection to promote air flow through living spaces. I also think that industrial-level energy storage across large time frames will prove to be infeasible and that industrial activity at any distance from hydroelectric power stations will have no choice but to adapt to intermittent energy regimes. The old adage about making hay while the sun shines will once again become more than just an adage. "Home economics" will regain some of its former meaning and dignity. "Victory gardens" might once again dot the urban and suburban landscape. Streetcars, walkable communities, and inland waterways will enjoy a revival. Oh, and forget the internet. This is going to be a case of very tough love, but it -will- in fact happen. As far as the current financial regime goes, I have no idea whether fractional reserve lending will survive the cheap-energy era or not. My guess is that it will, but this is only a guess. It's pretty clear to me that a large portion of our current debt is going to be repudiated in one way or another, but just what that means for the future of the financial system remains to be seen. I'm quite sure that the future is not going to resemble the past. I'm not as sure that the time frame is 20 years starting in 2008, as has often been stated. I'm also sure that we're going to have a robust economy going forward, although perhaps operating under a different financial and technological regime. Barring WWIII, and no new and practically limitless energy technology such as fusion of deuterium becomes technically and economically viable, of course.

Are we going to be able to double the amount of fuel the world puts out in the next 70 years? To me that seems highly unlikely. How many new people are we going to add in the next 70 years? If we use the past to project forward we should have twice as many people in that time.
The real crisis has already taken place. We just haven’t realized it yet. The world has added more then 4 billion people, well over twice, since 1960, just 58 years ago. That was the cause of the crisis we are facing today.
The chance of doubling fuel production or population in the next 70 years is nearly zero. But what is going to stop population from doubling? As Chris and Gail said, it will be a lack of resources, all resources; food, water, fuels, metal, wood, you name it. So the death birth rate will at least equal out. More likely it will swing sharply in the other direction and in a hundred years there will be a lot fewer people on earth.
As Gail said there really isn’t a happy ending to this story as much as we all want there to be. Some of us can feel smug because we saw it coming but what are we really going to do?
I think Chris and Adam are pretty close with their book “Prosper” , do what you can to make life comfortable in the near future, love your family and friends and enjoy what you have now/

Dear MKI,
I am taken aback, embarrassed. I found your last post (13) to be insulting, disrespectful and contemptuous. Dr. Martenson is the Host of the Podcast and Ms. Tverberg is his guest., they deserve our repect! We each have the opportunity to listen and take away what we agree with and leave the rest. Having already listened to a previous Podcast and disagreed with the presenters the respectful course of action would have been to skip this podcast rather than listen and then attack the presenters because you don’t agree with them.
In your posts there are statements like “the data speaks for itself. It isn’t debatable”. or “We are energy rich. Period” These statements shut down debate… It’s as if there is an expectation that we should all agree with you, without question, hook, line, and sinker, no debate!
I come to this site to learn, and more often than not my thought is maybe, maybe not, I will have to ponder and read, search and learn more. No one, let me repeat that no one has a corner on the truth or reality! Each and every person that comes to this site has a unique perspective. That is one reason I stick around because there are not a lot of silver haired Grandma’s here and just maybe I can offer a perspective, on occasion that others don’t have. In order to learn and grow and create change we need polite and respectful debate and the only way to do that is to listen and respond with politeness and compassion.
Stephen Covey’s 6th Habit of Highly Effective People is “Seek first to understand and then be understood”.
I think you owe Dr. Martenson and Ms. Tverberg and apology…
AKGrannyWGrit

Are we going to be able to double the amount of fuel the world puts out in the next 70 years? To me that seems highly unlikely. How many new people are we going to add in the next 70 years? If we use the past to project forward we should have twice as many people in that time.
The real crisis has already taken place. We just haven’t realized it yet. The world has added more then 4 billion people, well over twice, since 1960, just 58 years ago. That was the cause of the crisis we are facing today.
The chance of doubling fuel production or population in the next 70 years is nearly zero. But what is going to stop population from doubling? As Chris and Gail said, it will be a lack of resources, all resources; food, water, fuels, metal, wood, you name it. So the death birth rate will at least equal out. More likely it will swing sharply in the other direction and in a hundred years there will be a lot fewer people on earth.
As Gail said there really isn’t a happy ending to this story as much as we all want there to be. Some of us can feel smug because we saw it coming but what are we really going to do?
I think Chris and Adam are pretty close with their book “Prosper” , do what you can to make life comfortable in the near future, love your family and friends and enjoy what you have now.

If the statistics and analysis on https://econimica.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/what-world-looks-like-x-africa… are correct, then the only part of the world where the population is growing is Central Africa.
This not good for Africa:

Sadly, the lack of growth in the rest of the world coupled with the ZIRP/NIRP driven overcapacity of nearly everything means there is no pathway for Africa to export themselves to prosperity.
He continues:
The global under 45yr/old population have essentially peaked, will flat-line for a decade, and then begin what appears to be a very long decline. THAT IS A BIG DEAL. With interest rates already at zero, debt and overcapacity rampant, and no population growth anywhere that matters (economically)...that means the current game premised on growth is over. The only question is what will the new game look like? Clearly the issues we face mean free-markets will not be allowed nor is a democracy seemingly capable of voting for long term solutions that mean significant short term pain. In truth, neither functioning markets nor functioning democracy's appears to exist any longer.
So, how are we going to feed Africa? Can we, even if at the moment the world grows more than enough food for everybody? By the way, in Australia the only thing keeping our population growing is an immigration ponzi scheme run by desperate governments of all political complexions. The whole thing looks to me rather like Jim Kunstler's long descent, and it started a few years ago.

Habit #5 not 6