Peak Oil and EROEI

[fifthcolumn]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Ha Ha. I knew most of you didn't know that. It was obvious from your responses. It's all about EFFICIENCY mate.

Care to expand on that?

Worldwide 60% of oil is used for transport.

Oil based transport is 4X less efficient that electric transport (and in some cases 8X less efficient such as electric rail freight comapred with diesel trucks). Do the maths and you will find that replacing 1% of oil production only requires an equivalent of 0.25% energy equivalent electrical production.

That's not to say that we WILL do this, but technically speaking we're a lot less doomed in theory than many peakoilers think.

[Adam1]

Picking through the petulance, one of the points you seem to be saying is that energy sources have other qualities other than net energy which drive our choices to exploit them. I think this accepted. Indeed, the academics who work in the field of net energy have incorporated energy quality into their analysis.

I don't think it is accepted. We have the argument propounded that the net EROEI of civilisation is declining because the net EROEI of oil is declining. I think this is wrong headed if the percentages are not overwhelmingly high in terms of our reliance on oil.

The percentages are not net energy percentages. These are much harder to quantify, as there are no agreed "energy accountancy" rules for allocating energy costs to energy production and distribution processes. However, oil is also more important than the gross energy production percentage suggests. Also, oil is more important because of its role as a "facilitator" or "master" resource in securing other energy sources. The physical properties of oil, liquid at room temperature, high MJ/kg and MJ/litre make it special. I did a calculation for my MSc showing that a large scale wind turbine can already deliver EROEIs in the range 1:30 - 1:40, more than typical oil from the Arabian peninsula. It would be hard to sustain an argument that the X GJ per annum of electricity from a 1:40 wind farm delivers the same "energy service" or useful work as a 1:40 oil field also producing X GJ per annum.

To be honest I haven't studied all the academic work on EROEI thoroughly enough to follow all the latest work on incorporating energy quality into EROEI calculations but I don't think I've read any academic working in the field who thinks that a simple EROEI calculation is the be-all-and-end-all in assessing the relative benefits of different energy sources.

You seem to be doing an RGR and going over the same ground again and again.

BTW, there is no firm data to show that coal is as plentiful as you claim.

Let's just say "we'll see".

If you haven't already, you might want to read this article and the references it links to.

[fifthcolumn]

I did a calculation for my MSc showing that a large scale wind turbine can already deliver EROEIs in the range 1:30 - 1:40, more than typical oil from the Arabian peninsula.

Exactly.

It would be hard to sustain an argument that the X GJ per annum of electricity from a 1:40 wind farm delivers the same "energy service" or useful work as a 1:40 oil field also producing X GJ per annum.

No it would be easy.
Most oil is used for transport. Electric transport is 4X as efficient.
Utility-wise you're getting 1:160 for the windfarm compared to the 1:40 for the oil. Moreover, you'll STILL be getting the energy from the windfarm in 20 years and the oil will be mainly depleted.

Of course you could argue that you can use oil for other things but that's tangential to the ENERGY UTILITY argument.

To be honest I haven't studied all the academic work on EROEI thoroughly enough to follow all the latest work on incorporating energy quality into EROEI calculations but I don't think I've read any academic working in the field who thinks that a simple EROEI calculation is the be-all-and-end-all in assessing the relative benefits of different energy sources.

And personally I don't rate someone just because they're an academic. I give professionals more credence every time.

You seem to be doing an RGR and going over the same ground again and again.

Maybe so. And I am similar to RGR in the sense that I don't like hearing the same tired old stuff over and over again and especially when it is talked down to me.

BTW, there is no firm data to show that coal is as plentiful as you claim.

Let's just say "we'll see".

[Adam1]

I did a calculation for my MSc showing that a large scale wind turbine can already deliver EROEIs in the range 1:30 - 1:40, more than typical oil from the Arabian peninsula.

Exactly.

It would be hard to sustain an argument that the X GJ per annum of electricity from a 1:40 wind farm delivers the same "energy service" or useful work as a 1:40 oil field also producing X GJ per annum.

No it would be easy.
Most oil is used for transport. Electric transport is 4X as efficient.
Utility-wise you're getting 1:160 for the windfarm compared to the 1:40 for the oil. Moreover, you'll STILL be getting the energy from the windfarm in 20 years and the oil will be mainly depleted.

4 X as efficient. Petrol internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient. Diesels about 25 - 30% and electric motors are, what, about 50% efficient. Adam2 can probably correct me on those figures but I don't see where you get 4X as efficient from. Plus, a few immediate problems come to mind. First, is that it is very time-consuming and very expensive to change all the infrastructure we currently have in place (ICE cars, tarmac roads (made with fossil fuels), filling stations, etc) that are currently geared up for liquid fuels in order for it to support an electric vehicle based transport system (Hirsch Report) - we don't have enough time or, now it seems money, to do it quickly enough to keep ahead of the depletion curve. Second, while it is true that electric motors are more efficient than ICEs, you are only looking at the energy directly delivered to the motor. The electricity has to be stored on board, or if not, a whole new infrastructure of overhead cables needs to be built to feed the vehicles energy without on-board storage. The currently most scalable technology is lead acid batteries. As a rule of thumb the round trip efficiency of charging and discharging them is about 80%. To make a valid comparison, you'd need to compare like with like. Choosing electricity delivered from the wind-powered grid with the energy from liquid fuels in a fuel tank is a bit arbitary. Third, road transport is only part of the problem, plane and ships need liquid fuel.

Sorry, a bit of a brain dump.

[clv101]

Okay, I understand where your misunderstanding is coming from now.

I DON'T MISUNDERSTAND. I D I S A G R E E.

I also reject 100% your position that you think you are the #1 expert on this just because you are an editor at the oil drum. I can tell you right now I'm better educated than you and I've been reading about peak oil non stop since 1997 AND I've actually worked in the oil industry. So give me a break about the "misunderstanding" things if you please.

Point 1: Civilisation needs a large amount of net energy to function, that's the energy available to do stuff other than harvest energy.

Great so it does. And if you were as much an expert as you think you are then you'd know that most energy produced IS NOT PRODUCED FROM OIL.

Point 2: Oil is currently our number 1 source of net energy.

No it's not. It's a large minority. 37% of world energy usage comes from oil. (see graph below) 50 some percent comes from coal and gas. Plenty of coal for now. Plenty of gas for now. Renewables are ramping up at breakneck speeds. It comes down to growth curves.

We go after oil BECAUSE it is a large source of net energy.

Well give the boy a star.

The statement above refers to the point when oil is no longer a net source of energy

Give the boy another star.

- at that point further extraction IS pointless IF your objective is to provide civilisation with net energy (which it is).

You were doing so well there.
No, we will extract as much or as little oil as we want if it is WORTH MORE than using the electricity directly. I can think of at least one (and I'm sure there's more) case where that would be true.

Whatever the source of input energy is, is irrelevant.

Wrong. Some sources are running out and others can be increased by building more infrastructure. HUGE difference. That is a fundamental and crucial error in the MISUNDERSTANDING propagated on TOD. Some of the posters in the comments section of the EROEI posts get it. Most don't.

If it takes more energy (even electrical energy from wind turbines) then we haven't got a net source of energy anymore and we might as well be attempting to run the world on Duracell batteries. They also aren't a source of net energy.

This is stating the obvious. Maybe it's too obvious for you to extrapolate the true picture though.

You're logic is changing the rules half way through, you're basically saying we can replace the net energy we currently get from oil with net energy from renewables.

Or Nuclear. Or Coal.

Great if we can... but for a long time now, many, many people have pointed out how the timescale and magnitude of oil decline can't be covered by renewables.

Uh huh. And others disagree.

I'm sorry fifthcolumn, I don't mean to be condescending nor talk down too you. However I did use the word misunderstanding with care. I do believe you are misunderstanding this point rather than disagreeing which we why we seem to be talking past each other.

Specifically addressing the points above, oil is our number 1 source. Your 37% graphic shows it. It's not semantics.

Here's the meat of our problem:

...the point when oil is no longer a net source of energy - at that point further extraction IS pointless IF your objective is to provide civilisation with net energy (which it is).

No, we will extract as much or as little oil as we want if it is WORTH MORE than using the electricity directly. I can think of at least one (and I'm sure there's more) case where that would be true.

I agree with your point, but believe you are misunderstanding if you think this truth address or in some way mitigates the peak oil problem. Most minerals we extract are only done so because they are worth more than the effort used to extract them. I expect we'll be producing oil with vanishingly small EROEI centuries from now in the same way we produce gold for example today with zero EROEI.

But this represents an regime change which I don't see you addressing. Being able to produce lots of oil isn't the point. The point is producing oil with high EROEI. If we can't do that then civilisation loses a large amount of net energy.

Whatever the source of input energy is, is irrelevant.

Wrong. Some sources are running out and others can be increased by building more infrastructure. HUGE difference. That is a fundamental and crucial error in the MISUNDERSTANDING propagated on TOD. Some of the posters in the comments section of the EROEI posts get it. Most don't.

I agree with you, for sure some sources are running out and others can and are increasing. I don't see anyone not appreciating that, here or on TOD. The problem is that the time scale and magnitude of decline of high EROEI oil isn't thought able to be offset by growth in alternative high EROEI sources.

[fifthcolumn]

I'm sorry fifthcolumn, I don't mean to be condescending nor talk down too you.

Thank you. You are man enough to say sorry. Since I was being rude to you in response to perceived condescension, it appears you have me at a disadvantage so I offer my apologies in return.

Specifically addressing the points above, oil is our number 1 source. Your 37% graphic shows it. It's not semantics.

While you are technically correct that it's the single biggest source, I argue that it is semantics since 63% of energy is provided by sources other than oil. The argument is about peak oil and that is our focus here.

But this represents an regime change which I don't see you addressing. Being able to produce lots of oil isn't the point. The point is producing oil with high EROEI. If we can't do that then civilisation loses a large amount of net energy.

We're seeing things from a different angle. I don't think we WILL produce lots of low EROEI oil by pumping it out with high EROEI electricity. I think we will produce some for specific applications like plastics that absolutely cannot be made from bio sources. I also think we will produce it to use for non-substitution scenarios like jet fuel. We simply can't substitue out enough biofuels to cover current jet fuel scenarios. Of course we may switch the bulk to high speed electric trains in which case the point is moot. But we may continue using low EROEI oil for jet fuel because of it's specific properties which batteries are unlikely to be able to match for this application.

I agree with you, for sure some sources are running out and others can and are increasing. I don't see anyone not appreciating that, here or on TOD. The problem is that the time scale and magnitude of decline of high EROEI oil isn't thought able to be offset by growth in alternative high EROEI sources.

And I agree with the conceptualization of the problem without agreeing with your conclusions. I think that the magnitude of the decline of oil can be covered by swapping out applications to electrical solutions where it is feasible to do so (e.g. freight to electric rail, local delivery to electric truck, mass transport from petrol cars to electric public transport and a much smaller fleet of electric cars).

My argument is not that we will maintain our lifestyle exactly as it is now. My argument is that we can maintain a lifestyle the way it is done in Oslo and this is not only achievable, it's not too painful either.

I think the current growth curves of production combined with the greater efficiency of electric transport are sufficient to achieve this minimum goal, though I don't think we have the time to get to electric cars for everyone in time before depletion sets in.
That said, if we do make it to global oslos then we will have enough spare energy to ultimately build out to electric cars for everybody and more or less our current way of life at some point in the future if that is what we choose to do.

[fifthcolumn]

4 X as efficient. Petrol internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient. Diesels about 25 - 30% and electric motors are, what, about 50% efficient. Adam2 can probably correct me on those figures but I don't see where you get 4X as efficient from. Sorry, a bit of a brain dump.

No probs.
If you want the exact numbers, google "well to wheels efficiency".
You will be surprised.
ICE engines are 16% well to wheels efficient.
Electric vehicles are closer to 80%. Thus the 4X.
Electric freight trains are slightly more than 80% efficient, whereas diesel trucks are about 6% well to wheels efficient.

Another way of calculating it is to figure backwards the energy content of petrol and it's miles per gallon and then do an equivalent miles per kilowatt hour. Using this alternative metric you get e.g. a Tesla Roadster gets 190 miles to the gallon compared to, say 45 miles to the gallon for a diesel vehicle.

This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking either.
I don't expect you to take my word for it either. But if you choose to disagree with me at least do the reading. I have and I am regurgitating my results here. I am point out that it looks like many peak oilers have only done the maths on oil decline and then compared this against an oil based equivalent. We don't NEED an oil based equivalent to get equivalent utility which will enable our civilisation and economy to keep functioning at an acceptable level close to current level.

One decent link is this:
http://www.7gen.com/blog/20090213/25461-fuel-efficiency

[snow hope]

My argument is not that we will maintain our lifestyle exactly as it is now. My argument is that we can maintain a lifestyle the way it is done in Oslo and this is not only achievable, it's not too painful either.

I think the current growth curves of production combined with the greater efficiency of electric transport are sufficient to achieve this minimum goal, though I don't think we have the time to get to electric cars for everyone in time before depletion sets in.
That said, if we do make it to global oslos then we will have enough spare energy to ultimately build out to electric cars for everybody and more or less our current way of life at some point in the future if that is what we choose to do.

That is very optomistic in my eyes FC. What in the world makes you think that we can AND WILL achieve that switch? Are you taking on board the 2.5 billion people in Chindia who are all starting to buy, and aspiring to drive their own personal cars?

Considering the ability of key Governments in the Western world and their past record, do you think they are up to organising this switch? What time scale do you think they have to do it in? Apart from Oslo has anywhere else done it, or is it just one town/city? I am far from being anywhere near persuaded - but would like to be!

[goslow]

Norway is a special case, they have excellent hydro resources supplying near 100% of their requirements. The rest of the world is not so well endowed in renewables. I simply find it hard to believe that we can expand our demand for electricity through electrification of transport, maintain our current lifestyle and demands for electricity for homes and industry, and enabling the developing world to live the same way WHILE making a major move to renewables. Somethings got to give and I suspect its the standard of living bit!

I hope though I might be wrong, and CSP in the Sahara, Severn tidal, offshore wind, solar PV on every roof etc could solve it!

[fifthcolumn]

That is very optomistic in my eyes FC. What in the world makes you think that we can AND WILL achieve that switch? Are you taking on board the 2.5 billion people in Chindia who are all starting to buy, and aspiring to drive their own personal cars?

No, sadly I have very little faith that the UK government and it's associated financial backers will do enough to avert collapse.
Certain other countries, however, I suspect will be more forward thinking, such as the Chinese and perhaps the French and the Germans.
Canada is also well placed.
The United States will do nothing till there are people screaming in the streets but at least they have the resources unlike the UK if they decide to do anything other than argue about whether anything is happening or not.

But that detracts from my point which is this: MATHEMATICALLY there's no reason why we can't make it. The question is a matter of all moving in the same direction. Can it be done? I believe it can. Will it? Very different question.

[Andy_K]

Norway is a special case, they have excellent hydro resources supplying near 100% of their requirements. The rest of the world is not so well endowed in renewables. I simply find it hard to believe that we can expand our demand for electricity through electrification of transport, maintain our current lifestyle and demands for electricity for homes and industry, and enabling the developing world to live the same way WHILE making a major move to renewables. Somethings got to give and I suspect its the standard of living bit!

I hope though I might be wrong, and CSP in the Sahara, Severn tidal, offshore wind, solar PV on every roof etc could solve it!

I agree. I expect standards of living to drop whilst we transition. I expect holidays abroad will be much rarer, people will drive less and may have to live much closer to work, and I expect public transport to be used more. I expect food prices to go up, and people may well have to cut back on eating meat every meal or buying large tellies.

I don't expect to see millions starving in the cities, or half the population return to working on the farms. If that happens in the developed world, it's a direct result of governmental incompetence of biblical proportions.

Let's not forget that on top of electricity being 4x more efficient for transport than oil, cutting back on the sheer amount of wasteful transport could probably cut the amount 'needed' by a third alone. Could we replace the oil depletion with other sources at 1/6th or 1/7th of the decline rate if it was either that and the End Of Days? I strongly suspect we could.

[fifthcolumn]

I agree. I expect standards of living to drop whilst we transition. I expect

Andy,

This is exactly what I see also.
When I talk about a "smooth transition" I mean there will be a hard recession at the very least. But hard recessions happened even during the upswing of peak oil so I consider them to be "normal".

I agree that standards of living will drop and people will be forced on to public transport quite simply because the production capacity won't be there to enable vast numbers of people to just swap their ford fiesta for a ford e-fiesta. I also expect due to rising fuel prices, people will have to cut back in other ways such as on the amount of meat they eat and foreign holidays will vapourise for the masses (at least by jet). That said, I'm not sure that it will be impossible to take foreign holidays. Especially in Europe it will soon be cheaper to travel by electric train than it is to fly. It will still be possible to get to the Costas from the UK. It will just take three days and likely be twice as expensive as it is now (or a bit more).
Electric transport networks will be built quite simply because it makes sense. Those people who still have money and who are still resident in the UK will invest their money where they can make a return. For transport, electric transport is it. Bus companies will first buy hybrid buses then electric buses. Trams will make a comeback because they're doable and easy. Trains will be electrified everywhere or will be abandoned due to lack of diesel.

In the end, though, after a period of adjustment (possibly lasting a couple of decades) we could be back to where we are now, but with the masses driving electric vehicles instead of petrol ones.

That said, I expect some countries will simply stagnate. I hope the UK isn't one of them but to be honest I came to the conclusion that the risk is uncomfortably high for the UK in particular just because of the population density and the massive stagnation in both government, the money community and the public in general. It's ludicrous that windfarms are still being blocked in the UK. But there you have it.

[fifthcolumn]

Norway is a special case, they have excellent hydro resources supplying near 100% of their requirements. The rest of the world is not so well endowed in renewables.

Well if you discount the sun and the wind it's not so well endowed. If you mean "already built" well then yes.

I simply find it hard to believe that we can expand our demand for electricity through electrification of transport, maintain our current lifestyle and demands for electricity for homes and industry, and enabling the developing world to live the same way WHILE making a major move to renewables. Somethings got to give and I suspect its the standard of living bit!

That was a more optmistic reading of what I said than I hold.
What I'm saying is that in effect the doom scenario is discounted due to the high EROEI of renewables combined with the high-but-limited contribution to total energy that oil gives combined with the high rate of build and the high substitution factor of electric for oil based transport.

There's going to be a shortfall, there's no doubt about that in my mind.
But the shortfall will be uneven. Some countries will collapse entirely down to cuba like levels and others will suffer brutal recessions. Only a handful of regions will have smooth sailing through this with only hardish recessions. But to be honest I count this as a relief.

I hope though I might be wrong, and CSP in the Sahara, Severn tidal, offshore wind, solar PV on every roof etc could solve it!

Technically speaking it could. Renewable Candy on this site has a mate with a funny name who works in the field of HVDC and has done a study showing that all of the EU and Russia could be supplied off purely renewables theoretically if we built a particular configuration of HVDC supergrid. So technically it can be done.

Whether we will have either the capital or the political willpower to do so is a different question.

I'm pessimistic about the UK though. I think there's a (too high) risk that the UK might sit on it's arse as it slides into the abyss.

[Adam1]

4 X as efficient. Petrol internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient. Diesels about 25 - 30% and electric motors are, what, about 50% efficient. Adam2 can probably correct me on those figures but I don't see where you get 4X as efficient from. Sorry, a bit of a brain dump.

No probs.
If you want the exact numbers, google "well to wheels efficiency".
You will be surprised.
ICE engines are 16% well to wheels efficient.
Electric vehicles are closer to 80%. Thus the 4X.
Electric freight trains are slightly more than 80% efficient, whereas diesel trucks are about 6% well to wheels efficient.

Another way of calculating it is to figure backwards the energy content of petrol and it's miles per gallon and then do an equivalent miles per kilowatt hour. Using this alternative metric you get e.g. a Tesla Roadster gets 190 miles to the gallon compared to, say 45 miles to the gallon for a diesel vehicle.

This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking either.
I don't expect you to take my word for it either. But if you choose to disagree with me at least do the reading. I have and I am regurgitating my results here. I am point out that it looks like many peak oilers have only done the maths on oil decline and then compared this against an oil based equivalent. We don't NEED an oil based equivalent to get equivalent utility which will enable our civilisation and economy to keep functioning at an acceptable level close to current level.

One decent link is this:
http://www.7gen.com/blog/20090213/25461-fuel-efficiency

I think I see now where you are coming from.

There are two related concepts being discussed here. First you have EROEI, which looks at all the direct and perhaps some of the indirect energy costs incurred in producing energy. Then you have the efficiency of the various components that make up the energy consuming side of the energy system.

You've probably seen this basic representation of EROEI before...



We need to be clear about the boundaries of both the EROEI/production and the efficiency/consumption part of the system. If comparing ICE vehicles with electric vehicles, it would make sense to make the electricity delivered to the premises where you are charging your vehicle the output of the EROEI analysis. So you would look at all the energy costs of producing that grid electricity. It's a big task to do meaningfully. When I did my calculation for my MSc, we considered three scenarios of wind farms connected to the existing UK grid. In a wholly renewables supplied future, there would be additional costs, e.g. in electricity storage or HVDC interconnectors needed to manage supply and demand. It may be that the overall EROEI of a wholly renewables driven grid would be lower.

Looking at the ICE vehicle, the EROEI output could be the refined liquid fuel product at the filling station.

Lets say that the renewables based grid has an average EROEI of 1:20 and the liquid fuels energy production system's average EROEI is 1:10

For a given expenditure of energy, we are getting twice as much out of the electric/renewables system.

On the consumer side, your link and the links from it suggest that electric vehicles are more energy efficient, so in the field of ground transportation we should all be better off when we all have switched to electric vehicles powered by the grid supplied by renewables.

As I mentioned before, there is the problem of the transition (cost/time of converting our energy production and transport infrastructure. Plus there is scale-ability. Can renewables, even at higher EROEI rates, deliver the energy flow rates? Are enough of them located in the places where the those high energy flow rates are currently required. There are still problems storing enough energy in an electric vehicle to get the necessary vehicle range.

If we'd started the energy transition 40+ years ago, I'd be as optimistic as you. If we had a more far-sighted, wiser and courageous political and corporate leadership, I'd be as optimistic as you. But that isn't the situation we are in.

The transition will be very bumpy now. We will have to squeeze increased efficiencies out of our existing ICE vehicles using non-technical means such as car sharing, planning our journeys better and by enjoying the pleasure of staying put. Maybe by the time my baby son is in his old age, the energy transition will be complete and he will be able to enjoy the benefits of this greater energy production and consumption efficiency. However, there are so many other problems in the pipeline, like climate change and water scarcity, that I find it hard to be as optimistic as you, or as glib as RGR.

[fifthcolumn]

Lets say that the renewables based grid has an average EROEI of 1:20 and the liquid fuels energy production system's average EROEI is 1:10

For a given expenditure of energy, we are getting twice as much out of the electric/renewables system.

Yes you've got it.
Using your numbers it means that for each 1% of oil production that drops we only need to replace 1/2% in equivalent energy production.
Half as much effort for the same utility.

The numbers are better than that though. It's 4X by the time you factor all the way through. Because the renewables are double and the electric car engine is double giving you four times not two. So you in reality you only need 1/4% for each one percent decline in oil production.

As I mentioned before, there is the problem of the transition (cost/time of converting our energy production and transport infrastructure.

Yes. Up till now renewables have been scaling up at breakneck speed. At some point we will run into infrastructure and human resources constraints at which point it will plateau. For that reason (late start + plateau) we're still looking at a medium term decline in net available energy across the board. But the good news is that the low lying fruit like electric mass transport and electric freight is very low lying fruit and can be ramped up rapidly even if the mass market electric vehicles could take two decades or more to ramp up.

Plus there is scale-ability. Can renewables, even at higher EROEI rates, deliver the energy flow rates?

Yes they can. Oslo proves it.
Don't get hung up about the source of the electricity (hydro), an electric grid is an electric grid. We can use any kind of electricity we want if we have the infrastructure in place.

Are enough of them located in the places where the those high energy flow rates are currently required. There are still problems storing enough energy in an electric vehicle to get the necessary vehicle range.

You're talking about the mass market electric vehicles here.
The answer is yes, but not in sufficient numbers. As for vehicle range, 80% of daily commutes in the USA are less than 15 miles each way. That problem is effectively solved with current technology. With newly discovered on-the-drawing-board technology, there are new batteries with 10X the charge by volume as the best of the breed current tech.

If we'd started the energy transition 40+ years ago, I'd be as optimistic as you. If we had a more far-sighted, wiser and courageous political and corporate leadership, I'd be as optimistic as you. But that isn't the situation we are in.

I think you overrate my optimism. I'm happy that we're not headed for dieoff. I am convinced that the most unscathed country is going to suffer a hard recession before pulling out whereas the worst will go into a decades long depression before pulling out. That's still a lot better than worldwide global collapse back to the stone age which is one peak oil scenario.

The transition will be very bumpy now.

I agree with you. I don't know what your position is on global transition.
My position is some areas will have nothing more than a hard recession but otherwise life will go on as usual. Other countries will go from being first world countries to being Argentina like. I fear that is the fate of the UK. That said it is quite possible that heavy manufacturing moves to the lucky places and they have serious booms and end up supplying the rest of the world. Much like the USA did to bombed flat Europe after WWII. Europe had effectively two decades of poverty before things started to pick up and other areas fared even worse. During this period the USA boomed because it was the "last man standing". I think there is a chance this will happen this time around. Sprechen sie Norwegian anyone?

We will have to squeeze increased efficiencies out of our existing ICE vehicles using non-technical means such as car sharing, planning our journeys better and by enjoying the pleasure of staying put. Maybe by the time my baby son is in his old age, the energy transition will be complete and he will be able to enjoy the benefits of this greater energy production and consumption efficiency. However, there are so many other problems in the pipeline, like climate change and water scarcity, that I find it hard to be as optimistic as you, or as glib as RGR.

I think after this discussion our positions are still closer than you initially thought.