Peak Oil and Climate Change
Posted by Chris Vernon on January 21, 2007 - 7:35pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: carbon dioxide, climate change, coal, global warming, peak oil [list all tags]
Other key contributors to this discussion include Jeremy Leggett who brought the subjects together in his book: Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis [Amazon.co.uk] and more recently Richard Heinberg who wrote an essay titled Bridging Peak Oil and Climate Change Activism [EnergyBulletin.net]. Below the fold, my thoughts:
The "depletionists", those subscribing to imminent peaks in the availability of oil and gas (some predisposed to environmental issues and some with little concern, even perhaps doubting the arguments for anthropogenic climate change mechanisms) instead point out that the officially stated fossil fuel resources are exaggerated and as a result the global economic growth forecasts and resulting emissions are also exaggerated. Activists focus on the ramifications of shortage and advocate proactive measures to curtail our reliance on a resource soon to be troublesomely scarce.
I’m squarely with the depletionists on this one. The IPCC business as usual projections are as preposterous as the CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) oil forecasts [The Oil Drum]. The science is good but the assumed inputs are off. Garbage in, garbage out. The concept of global oil/gas peaks within a decade is incompatible with the anthropogenic emission driven ~900ppm CO2, >+4°C from 1990 by 2100 IPCC forecast.
IPCC Scenarios
Source: IPCC 2001: Summary for Policymakers (.pdf)
For reference the A1F and A2 scenarios call for emissions from fossil fuels of 30.3 GtC/yr and 28.9 GtC/yr respectively compared with 1990 emissions of 6.0 GtC/yr. Even the lowest A1T and B1 scenarios double 1990 emissions by 2050 before returning to a little below 1990 by the century’s end. Source: IPPC: Emissions Scenarios (.pfd)
I’m also deeply sceptical of any efforts to proactively reduce oil/gas consumption below that described by the depletion curve – it’s just too useful. To suggest we can choose a level of oil/gas consumption below the depletion curve is to say that the reductions imposed by, and the impacts of peak oil, are so trivial we would actually choose greater reduction i.e. lesser consumption? No way. I am pessimistic about choosing a lower consumption and have no faith at all in choice/reform “beating” the depletion curve down.
The climate doesn’t care how we emit what we emit but just what the emissions are. It is hard to believe the oil/gas originated emissions will be anything other than solely determined by the depletion curve.
Absolutely it would be better if we chose to reduce consumption/emissions rather than be forced by shortage, the more action by choice/reform the better. But I see that as a peak oil issue, trying to maximise energy services as resources deplete, not a climate change issue.
Climate change activism should be about total CO2 emissions (and sinks) – I just don’t see how activism targeted at oil/gas can impact the CO2 emissions.
Peak oil activism should be about minimising the hardship created by reduced oil/gas availability.
So I’m left in the position that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible. We can’t do anything about that. However, luckily, that alone won’t spell the climate disaster the activists warn us of.
That won’t spell climate disaster? No, well not according to the acclaimed climate scientist James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science. He presented [The Oil Drum] this chart at a recent lecture, it shows the cumulative atmospheric concentrations of CO2 attributed to difference sources:
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations by source
What Hansen is saying is that the remaining oil and gas can be burnt whilst limiting atmospheric CO2 to ~450ppm and incremental temperature increase to only 1°C, which really should be the limit unless we want to live on a very different planet. The challenge is that the oil and gas combustion use most of the 450ppm limit, the key therefore is CO2 sequestration or abstinence from coal and unconventional fossil fuels.
Whilst Hansen doesn’t think we are going to reach peak oil next week he does expect peak within 20 years in which case he said we can live with the oil/gas CO2 contribution.
The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal – this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I’m doubtful.
My doubt isn’t due to the magnitude of oil/gas physically used for coal mining – that’s tiny. It’s more to do with demand. I think peak oil/gas will destroy demand. Think about the Chinese example of building a new coal power station every 5 days – the only reason they are doing that is to run the factories manufacturing stuff for the West and to fuel the increasing Chinese “quality of life”. Both these sources of demand are directly funded by Western economic growth. If you subscribe to peak oil/gas resulting in economic depression then energy demand (including electricity and coal) will fall. Coal use is a function of global GDP, if peak oil/gas causes global GDP to fall then coal demand will fall too.
I don’t think it’s possible to maintain growth by replacing depleting oil/gas with coal to liquids and electrification. That’s the only scenario that would see increased coal burn in the face of peak oil.
So, to be intellectually honest I would like to see climate change activists ignore the emissions from oil/gas – ignore cheap flights, airport expansion and SUVs and instead focus primarily on coal burn. That is electricity consumption and low/zero CO2 generation of electricity. This is an easy battle to fight as there is massive scope for reducing electricity consumption and massive potential for low/zero CO2 electricity generation. The climate change activist should also focus on land use (deforestation etc.) and be mindful of the depletionists' points and theoretical threat of non-conventional fossil fuels.
The depletionists on the other hand should primarily focus on energy security, that is, minimising the loss of energy services as oil and gas availability decreases. This involves reducing the oil/gas intensity of what we do and where the anti-SUV, pro-light rail, reduced “economic reliance” on flying etc arguments should be made. Whilst supply side solutions based on non-conventional fossil fuels are likely to be considered, the depletionist should remain mindful of the CO2 intensity of such solutions – in any event non-conventional fossil fuels are unlikely to prove viable or amount to anything significant.
There is perhaps a difference between being an intellectually honest activist and being an effective activist though! As the general public and politicians now accept CO2 as “bad” and as increasing aviation for example is recognised as being a significant source of increasing emissions, the depletionist campaigning for reduced economic reliance on flying could cite CO2 emissions to add weight to their argument. Effective as this may be I don’t see it as totally intellectually honest.
Conclusion
My thesis is that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible, however imminent peaks in production constrain emissions within a Hubbert-style envelope. Oil and gas consumption doesn’t represent a degree of freedom for impacting emissions so time, energy and political capital should not be spent attempting to reduce oil and gas consumption in the name of reducing total CO2 emissions. Efforts are likely to be futile.Instead, the degree of freedom we do have available to address emissions is coal – through reducing electricity demand and increasing low/zero CO2 electricity generation. This is where effort should be focused.
That isn’t to say reduced oil/gas reliance shouldn’t be pursued aggressively through efficiency and behavioural change, it should but not under the illusion that it will deliver reduced total CO2 emissions. Pursue reduced oil/gas reliance in the name of imminent peaks, to mitigate some of the negative impacts of imminent shortage.
Unfortunately wide acceptance of imminently peaking oil and gas supplies is not yet with us, severely limiting the effectiveness of the peak oil arguments. Although not strictly intellectually honest, arguing for reduced oil and gas reliance in the name of reducing total CO2 emissions is likely to be more effective.
Consider this a reminder to positively rate this articles (using the icons under the tags in the story title) at reddit (note the new reddit counters! just click on them and hit the up arrow to help out), digg, and del.icio.us if you are so inclined. (email me at the eds box if you have questions about this).
Also, don't forget to submit this to your favorite link farms, such as metafilter, stumbleupon, slashdot, fark, boingboing, furl, or any of the others.
I can assure you that the authors appreciate your efforts to get them more readers.
Climate change activism is all very well; and it is true that awareness has increased exponentially in 2006. However, when it comes to actually doing something, very few people actually are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. For a whole bunch of reasons: disbelief, denial, inertia, cost blah blah blah.
Not enough has been done, or will be done in time and we have probably tripped a couple of important tipping points already. I was disturbed to read today that "dozens of carbon measuring stations around the world" have recorded higher carbon levels than would be consistent with the use of fossil fuels in 2006. Maybe that melted tundra is releasing large volumes of CO2.
This doesn't mean that we must stop. On the contrary we must redouble our efforts! But it is hard, because it is probably futile.
So it is with oil depletion. People just do not accept the hypothesis. Moreover, they certainly will not change their lives to live more frugally. Gas prices are down. The bone headed journos are telling them Peak Oil has been proven wrong. Toyota has seductive new ads for its SUV's. Try to take people any further down the Peak Oil story and one begins to sound like a single issue nut case.
In summary, I think it is too late. Both on oil and on global warming. I drive a 50mpg car. I have signed up for 100% renewable electricity. We have low wattage light bulbs and we turn lights and equipment off. But I still fly. And I still consume. It probably is far too little far too late.
The concept of global warming is a lot more politically tenable than saying we have used up half our oil and growth is over. Global warming is something the whole world can work together on (hypothetically). Peak Oil, is more choosing sides geopolitically. I expect global warming will morph from politically annoying to a politically expedient in the years ahead.
Since the answer to both global warming and Peak Oil is less consumption, the political juggernauts will find global warming a much more reasonable rationale for recommending( requiring?) curfews, odd/even driving days, rationing coupons, etc for fossil fuels than telling the straight truth about depletion (that would be too real and scary)
I expect there will eventually be policies under the guise of mitigating climate change that are really driven by energy constraints.
Nate,
Although I agree that the correct responses to Peak Oil & Gas can fulfill the concerns of “warmers”, I do not subscribe that idea of “lying” to the folk. We should, and can, work together for a better world, but let’s not do that on the basis of falsity and dishonest intellect.
Well, it's not entirely a lie.
But it would be better to try and steer the GW activists towards campaigning for coal reduction, while telling the public that oil reduction is the cure. Two birds, and all that.
Maybe?
When a person involved in the oil industry lies he/she is merely behaving in a natural manner for that industry. The oil industry is not well known for either its honesty or its great concern for the environment.
Nor, for that matter, is the oil industry very well known for its humanitarianism. The oil industry has committed so many crimes against humanity that oil is always tinged with blood.
Peak Oil is a good thing specifically because it will drive the oil industry out of existence. My only regret is that the Earth possessed oil, not that the Earth will run out of oil.
I think that a carbon tax, based on the carbon content of the fuel, mitigates both peak oil and global warming; it encourages fossil fuel conservation overall, but taxes coal more heavily than oil, and oil more heavily than natural gas, which sends the right economic signals for lessening global warming impacts, too. If coupled with a payroll tax reduction, as I recall Al Gore proposed, it encourages replacing fossil fuel inputs in the economy with labor inputs, which is good peak oil prep as well.
Sorry Chris, must differ on the side of pessimism. There is zero probability that coal burning can be controlled planetwide. I have no doubt that people will eventually burn all the coal available with +EROEI. Nations that tap the power of coal will be able to out compete those limited to nuclear and renewable energy sources. CO2 sequestration will be done only in rare situations. Even in "clean, green" New Zealand, opening a coal power plant is the most likely solution to Auckland's electric power crisis.
While coal is not as useful as oil or gas, it is already being used for coal to liquids. Many plans for mitigation of the decline in oil production are based on massive coal to liquids projects. Coal energy will also be tapped to make ethanol and to replace natural gas for electric generation. If it gets hot enough so that air conditioning is needed in Alaska, coal will be burned to power the air conditioners. When worst comes to worst, look for coal powered steamboats and railroads again, maybe even coal powered steamer automobiles.
I am with Lovelock on this one. The planet is going to get roasted, and nothing can be done about it on the macro level. On the personal level, one could buy subpolar land for the grandchildren.
However, agree that all the political drama about the evils of air travel is pointless.
You have very little faith in the climate change activism! It appears there is significant momentum building at the moment with even Exxon shifting their position slightly, US evangelicals met with Hansen and others last week and made positive noises and the British government is hinting that Bush will bring up CO2 emission targets in the State of the Union on Tuesday. I think things are moving fast.
My thinking regarding coal over the next few decades goes along these lines: Can coal substitute for declining oil and gas enabling business-as-usual and GDP growth to continue through the 21st Century? I say no. In that case we have contraction, falling global GDP. In that situation I can't see where the demand for this massive coal burn is going to come from. During depressions energy consumption falls, whether the depression was caused by peak oil isn't really relevant, if we have depression coal demand is likely to fall inline with global productivity.
Climate change activists always ignore or dismiss human nature. The fact is we will not accept any restrictions on our rights to the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed, including the right to breed. That means when oil and gas become scarce we will burn coal, wood, garbage, old newspapers, and anything else we can find to keep warm. It means when the lights go out we will do anything to make them come on again. And it means when the cars and trucks run out of gasoline we will find some other means to keep them running. So the planet is going to get baked, fried and london broiled. That's human nature.
Well, look at what the Kim family did - they burned their SUV's tires! They got out on a little-traveled road, city people trying to take on the rather trackless Northwestern US wild, and the wild won. So they ended up burning up their SUV's tires to keep warm, they didn't form a "nest" out of their clothes and sleep huddled naked together which would have been toasty-warm, restrict their moving about to the warm hours, and do some foraging, they didn't discover the hunting/fishing cabin about a mile away with provisions, they burned their SUVs tires. Mr Kim eventually took off on his own to try to find help, Mrs Kim and kids stayed put and were rescued.
The reason I find burning the SUV's tires to ironic is, it's very polluting, they'd have had to do it outside of course, which means most of the heat wasted, and what if they'd been found by some kid with an ATV or motorcycle who could have gone and gotten 5 gal's of gas and driven 'em out of there? Nope they rendered their vehicle useless.
I see this as a microcosm of how humans, not just American humans but most humans will act.
Fleam,
With all due respect, I think the problem for the Kims was starvation, not heat. They had no food and they were slowly starving to death. Also, I believe there is an ongoing investigation by the Oregon police department as to why the search for poor James Kim (deceased Silicon Valey high tech guru) and his wife and 2 children was so botched up.
But yes, I agree that the Kim saga is a warning to the rest of us about how unprepared and uneducated we are.
Unfortunately true. We need nukes, because burning uranium is much less globally destructive than coal.
Of the Socolow and Paccala 'wedges' which Al Gore alludes to in An Iconvenient Truth, 1 wegde = 1bn tpa of carbon abatement in 2050.
Current emissions 7bn tpa. 2050 emissions, business as usual, 15bn tpa.
That is equivalent to 1000 new nuclear stations (to replace the existing fleet which will be finished by then, and build a net 500 new reactors).
So yes nuclear is part of the solution, but only 1/8th of what is required to stabilise CO2 emissions at their current level. I don't know of any reasonable nuclear engineer or scientist or economist who thinks we can build more than 20 reactors pa, worlwide.
Carbon Capture and Storage on large coal fired power plants is another wedge.
Why? They're only about 1-2 billion in a 50 trillion dollar economy.
It may be a 50 trillion dollar economy but I doubt my hairdresser (who contributes to that economy) would be able to contribute much towards building a nuclear power station!
She cuts the hair of construction crews and engineers that would otherwise be working on coal plants.
If you are including the cost of the construction crew's haircuts then the power stations cost more than the 1-2 billion you mentioned.
.
Chris Vernon wrote:
BUT what if peak is more like a plateau with a slow squeeze on economic growth as Stuart Staniford has argued? In that case, no depression, maybe not even a permanent recession.
Further, our transition to dirty coal might emit enough extra CO2 to offset the lower emissions as a result of shrinking GDP based on cleaner fuels.
With GDP falling, I don't see climate activism amounting to a hill of beans. The only reason it's enjoying a surge now is that people think they can afford it.
The only reason it's enjoying a surge now is that people think they can afford it.
It's not even that - the only reason it's enjoying a surge now is that people are not asked to pay for it. Even affordable but somehow reducing the standard of living price will be deeemed unacceptable - as we are witnessing in Germany and Denmark for enxample, where green enthusiasm is waning as costs grow and reality starts to kick in.
If the recession is due to lack of oil (meaning high prices), then there will be someone who cures this lack offering CTL oil for a slightly lower price.
Only if the recession is caused by other factors, raising the oil supply obviously will not make a difference and therefore not be employed.
Cheers,
Davidyson
Nations that tap the power of coal will be able to out compete those limited to nuclear and renewable energy sources.
This depends. France which is mostly nuclear and renewable (hydro) powered features one of the lowest electricity rates in Europe at 13.6 c/kwth. Its mostly coal powered eastern neighbour - Germany enjoys almost 20c/kwth price and has 65% higher per capita CO2 emissions (10.3 tonnes CO2/capita vs 6.2 tonnes/capita, source).
The key is government engagement with nuclear power in France and the correctly persued policy of mass-producing and incrementaly evolving the best nuclear reactor designs. My only hope to fight climate change is doing something similar on a world scale. Peak Oil does not bother me (aside from the dangers of resource wars).
LevinK-"The key is government engagement with nuclear power in France and the correctly persued policy of mass-producing and incrementaly evolving the best nuclear reactor designs."
Contrast the US system. No standard design and varied types [boiling water v pressurized water, etc]; frequent mis-understandings because procedures, training, manuals, are often a local matter; competitive and defensive attitudes are invited by lack of an impartial, mandated standard by which to monitor and assess performance, thereby putting emphasis on merely the appearance of "looking good"; even the language/jargon/definitions vary from plant to plant.
The US system is "industry" driven with government oversight on the model of the FDA. Regulation is mostly self-regulation. E.g.-Even record-keeping reflects the conflict of interest inherent in self-regulation. Sure, ink is used rather than pencil to discourage alteraton, but then alteration occurs simply by writing a new "original" record and tearing up the original "original". Such is done to make the record appear neat and clean as it is permanently kept for or by the NucRegCommission [looks good] but "original" logging of data is lost and sometimes inadvertantly altered.
Despite the handicap of the US system being poorly-standardized, by limited personal experience over several years, I have always observed good intentions and honest best-efforts by all employees with whom I interact, with exceptions being minor and within tolerance for large groups.
The standardization levels in France would seem to give them much greater freedom from unneeded distractions so they keep more attention on doing what they are doing, thus minimizing potential catastrophic "events".
But catastrophic near-misses keep occurring and we have have been lucky. I assume France has its near-misses, too. The concept of "downwind", in fact, covers endless territory.
BTW, both Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island "events" involved management over-riding [control-room] operators' attempts to shut-down when the operators recognized potential, out-of-control situations that deviated from their plan.
Regarding the nuclear-power option, what do readers of this board thing of Dr. Ernest Sternglass' work [Secret Fallout]on low-radiation effect on populations, especially the lowering of IQ test scores? I read it years ago and wonder if his data was ever refuted?
And consider this: If you can create radioactivity but you cannot uncreate [stop] it, can you really control it? E.g.nuclear "waste".
You want us to research yet another anti-nuclear pseudoscientist that misconstrues data with an agenda?
We can uncreate it at some cost through neutron irradiation and actinide incinerator reactors. Its just not worth it. Controlling it is as easy as encasing it in concrete for the next five or ten decades.
Despite Three Miles Island I find the record of the nuclear industry in the US almost impecable. Which is an achievement worth highest level of recognition - given the deficiencies of the system we are talking about. Consider the number of death cases from nuclear incidents in the history of US civilian industry - 0, nada. Now compare this to the coal industry which scores number of deaths in the coal mines each year. BTW it is notable how the coal mine death in public perceptions are somehow separated from the elictricity we are valuing so much.
But catastrophic near-misses keep occurring and we have have been lucky.
It is not luck it is active precaution that keeps this from happening. The same planned precautions which save lives daily and we are accepting as a normal part of our live - like wearing a seatbelt for example.
Well, there is a bit more to Germany's high consumer electric prices (industry enjoys a very low rate) - look at the EU fines coming from abusing the market, which the electric companies are not really happy about, but after the offices were searched, and the files seized, it is a bit out of their hands - as reported, one of those companies will have fines in the 'large' or 'major' range.
Quite honestly, the major reliance on coal burning does disturb a lot of Germans, which is why laws have been passed mandating efficiency/conservation, and in forcing renewable energy to bought and distributed by the electric companies, which hate this process deeply - they would rather apply for more permits for new coal burning plants (EnBW), then a couple of weeks later apply for a permit to keep their oldest nuclear plant running, saying it is out of concern for global warming.
No one here actually trusts or believes the energy companies have any interest but their own for anything they do. But since Germany still has a somewhat functioning democratic system, the energy companies don't always get to write the laws, and they still have to follow them the ones they don't approve of.
Of course, many people hold simplistic views which are not well thought out in terms of energy - but the energy companies have a very simple view - profit, regardless. And many of their customers would like a chance to do things differently.
I think you are being quite one-sided on this one.
Yes, utilities are large, beurocratic and sometimes autocrative mastodonts. But this is nothing new - they are like that everywhere around the world. What is more important is there are certain reasons for this, and the reasons fundamentally lie in the nature of the industry - which requires it in order to achieve economies of scale and in order to effectively manage the grid, which is in the end is only one for all. This is the nature of the technology and we don't have any others... so far, dispersed small local grids are present only in countries like Kenya and the observed quality of service is not very good.
And of course utilities will rant at whatever mandates they are coerced to obey. Mandates are the worst possible tool in government policy - they force some business decision on the companies and eliminate any competitive element. They are much like additional tax burden, because the company has to absorb the costs associated with them without being credited anything else than not being closed down. BTW I admit experiencing sardonic pleasure watching the latest EU idiocy of trying to break down utilities - knowing how this affects prices and reliability of service wherever it happens.
the energy companies have a very simple view - profit, regardless
I find this absolutely distructive. The idea that energy companies are our "enemies", which need to be faught with is leading us to nowhere. We are the ones that created energy companies because we are the ones demanding their product at reasonable cost - why not just stop using it if they are so "bad"? I know it is giving a convenient scapegoat to the public, but this is not the way to make them become better. We need to try spending sometime in their shoes too.
Germany is a strange case - before the electric market was 'liberalized' (which in this case essentially means restructured into large scale monopoly power in the hands of a few, where before it was local monopolies in the hands of a fairly large number), much of what is under discussion here in terms of structure didn't really exist - that is, the 'Stadtwerke' were generally responsible for water, sewage, electricity, district heating, etc. As these Stadtwerke tended to be somewhat bound to the community, they made decisions based on local conditions.
A large, centralized monopoly utility may have certain attributes which fit the technical conditions of maintaining a complex framework - but as happened here, even when other energy companies attempt to sell electricity which is generated using renewable electricity only (the customers naturally pay a very high price), the charges for handling that customer's 'free market' choice become absurd - or some reason is given why it can't be done. And of course, if one barrier is overcome, the company just invents another. (In a related area - the accounting tricks used by a gas company to justify their billing where so outrageous that they were publicly ridiculed for the absurdity of it - but that didn't stop them from continuing to charge that rate. A judge might, though.)
I could go on about EnBW/Yello - when the market was first opened, all the large monopoly companies created cheaper, nimbler units, to try to expand their business into other monopoly regions. As it turned out, they were so clever at finding ever more creative (and illegal) ways to block any competition, that their less expensive divisions were never able to go beyond their monopoly market - it is amusing to see how Yello pays a fee to its parent to be able to use its parent's system, while still providing electricity at a lower price - the whole thing is absurd, and having watched it play out over a decade, amusing is about the only word for it, unless you need an object lesson in how a 'free market' works in a capitalist system, with politicians that are also available for the right price.
The heads of RWE or EnBW care about nothing but profit - and they are so well set politically, that even major or minor corruption scandals (things like handing out free World Cup tickets and just hanging out with the minister in charge of regulatory decisions) don't make the tiniest difference.
An adversial relationship is about the only type they understand, to be honest, while they cry about how unfair it is they are punished for breaking the law repeatedly, and abusing their 'natural' monopoly position.
But the point that they are not the enemy is not wrong - just the people currently running them, in many cases.
AFAIK you can't buy sub polar land.
1. who knows what ownership rights will be in 50 years time? One is postulating the death of most of the planet's population (or at least its migration).
2. Canada. The land is owned by the state, mostly.
Russia-- well we know who owns Russia's land (it ain't the people who live there).
Alaska I am not sure.
Which is an argument for Carbon Capture and Storage.
For coal fired power stations, coal to oil facilities and chemical plants in general, this can be done-- and it will be.
The world has survived big phase shifts in energy sources before (from wood to coal, from whale oil to geologic oil). It can again. It might be wrenching, but it is also inevitable (exhaustion of geologic resources of coal).
O.K., I might as well get in trouble again with what I say and continue my long tradition at TOD...
In astounds me that most "environmentalists" have never understood that the best friend they EVERY HAD has been light sweet crude oil and natural gas.
They somehow manage to ignore and sometimes even willingly push out of thier mind the spectre of Pittsburgh, London, and Coalbrookdale before the age of cheap and easy natural gas and oil, and assume that people will sit in the dark and freeze before they will return to that type of coal blackened hell.
Other's at TOD have explained it well, and I have discussed it before in other posts....there are only two ways away from oil/gas in relation to having a viable liquid fuel, and that is up the chain on the hydrogen chain (more Hydrogen/less Carbon and or down the chain (more Carbon, less Hydrogen). I once call it the C and H balance. Now once you go above natural gas, there is NOT much room left to the top side. Methanes and straight unattached Hydrogen is about it, but unattached Hydrogen does not exist naturally, it has to be shaken loose or detached from something else (other than fossil fuel, the most common place is water in which it has to be detachad from Oxygen, at this time NOT cheap or easy, but technically it can be done.
Down the chain on the C and H balance is what we know to be the messy stuff.....coal, tar sand, heavy oils, oil shale, peat. IF oil and gas get expensive and hard to get, make no mistake, these WILL be used, Kyoto and the melting of Greenland be dammed.
Interestingly there is another rapidly developing path, but one has to be VERY CAREFUL what they say to avoid being misunderstood: The biofuels path is technically viable, and has the possibility of vast imputs of relatively clean or "carbon neutral" energy. BUT, we must make sure that we are not seen as talking about ethanol per se, such has been the victory of the ethanol lobby that many now see ethonal and "bio-fuel" as synonyms.
Ethanol is only one of a family of alcohols, which is one of a family of bio-fuels. Methane recapture and such advances as Biobutanol
( http://www.butanol.com ) offer the prspect of stretching the portable liquid fuel supply of the nations of the world, while solar, wind and conservation can reduce the residential and stationary use, while at the same time reducing CO2 discharge, but at the end of the day, we need a hook....it seems that neither global warming nor peak oil are causiing the people of the nations of the world to be willing to make sacrifice and change to reduce overall energy waste and to develop low carbon options......what will work
My bet: We need to play to the national securtiy issue of each individual nation. As each country feels a real threat, not as much from peak or warming, but from being bled to death by the fossil fuel providers, they will be more inclined to look for real and workable decentralized options.
Or......there is a risk that we are now getting just too old, too tired, and too fat to change, and intend to ride it on out to the finish, and hope the brats can handle it.....after all, it will be thier world......but interestingly, the young seem less interested in this whole discussion than even the old.....go figure.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Yep. As I have treated some Waikato coal miners for respiratory troubles, so they could go back to work, never underestimate what people are willing to suffer out of necessity.
Did the old-time Maori, excellent specimens of health, consider that coal a necessity?
The Maori population at the time of European contact was about 100,000 and the limit of carrying capacity. The various Iwis were waging wars in which the losers were eaten. The current NZ population is 40 times that now. It is just barely possible that the current population could be supported with organic farming. Britain, with similar land area fluctuated from 6 million population in good times to 2 million to bad times before fossil fuel inputs.
Mr. Conner, I am an environmentalist and I just want to affirm the above statement. The oil and natural gas industries are the best friends that the environmentalists have ever had. These two industries have singlehandedly driven Homo sapiens to the edge of extinction and it is my sincere hope that these industries keep on working hard so that they can accomplish that noble and glorious task.
The oil and natural gas industries are not the enemy of Nature. No, not in the least. Homo sapiens are the enemy of Nature. Humankind is a walking, talking, tool-making, allegedly-intelligent natural disaster. The oil and natural gas industries have only served to make humankind a more powerful self-exterminator and for that I thank the industry for its contribution to the long-term health of the planet.
My advice is very simple: Burn all the oil, burn all the natural gas, burn all the coal! If you succeed at this task there is a pretty good chance that Homo sapiens will go extinct within a millennium and for that Nature will bless your memory by preserving a memory of humankind as a fossil in the sedimentary rocks of this era.
I love the environment, I love Nature, and I love the oil industry: Thanks for all the smog! Thanks for the Exxon Valdez. Thanks for the tar sand industry -- there's plenty of pristine Canada available for burning, so burn it all up!
I want plentiful, cheap gasoline and I am inclined to let you people burn up the entire Earth for me. I am the consumer and I love my addictions. Did you know that there are hundreds of miles of Florida beaches which are still protected from the oil industry? How is that possible? I want gasoline and I don't care how oily my toes get at the beach ... just get me that oil!
Let's burn it all up. The sooner that humankind goes extinct, the better. The Universe doesn't need us and the Earth is a better place without us. So let's just burn it all up. We live just for today so who cares if humankind goes extinct tomorrow?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Well, two things:
1) Humans ARE Nature. We evolve from within everything you see around you.
So the burning of oil is an act of nature.. ;-)
2) Don't worry for the rest of nature; The earth has seen greater disasters than man.
Hello Roger,
Humans are an animal, no better but certainly a lot worse than the other animals.
The rest of Nature can, and will, take care of itself. Humankind is busy committing global suicide. After humankind is gone, Nature will repair our damage and life will continue for at least a billion more years without us.
God doesn't care if humankind goes extinct. Nature would prefer to remove the primate plague. Humankind is working very hard at suicide and our species is succeeding.
In other words: The human problem has a human solution and that solution is humankind's extinction.
So keep on burning that oil, natural gas and coal. At this point it doesn't make any difference because humankind has already inflicted the fatal blow to the species. Extinction is both inevitable and inescapable at this point.
Nature is not an anthropamorphic force...
And civilization will encase the earth in glass and steel and go on to eat the stars before its course has been run.
Hello Dezakin,
Here is a religious opinion, a matter of faith, and an indication of an animal in deep denial about its real place in the Universe.
Homo sapiens is a primate which has not existed very long so I urge great caution among those who would like to place the mantle of immortality on our species. I am looking at the Earth today and have grave doubts about our species' ability to survive for another ten thousand years.
And the notion that humans will voyage to the stars is pure delusion and science fantasy and nothing else. Have you noticed that a large number of the fiction associated with this thought possesses magical, fantasy qualities? That should tell you something, but few people notice what they would rather not know.
Humans are primates, nothing more nothing less. Humans are just an animal and for that reason the species has no claim to immortality and no hope of conquering space. We will go extinct and that will constitute the end of the human tragedy.
Dave, I completely agree with you.
I am a Christian and of course disagree with the metaphysical statement that humans are nothing more than primates. However, I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion that we will not conquer space.
In space travel, we have two basic physics problems. The first is that being on the surface of the earth puts us in a gravity hole, and it takes a tremendous amount of energy to get out of that hole. Converted to dollars, the cost to put a payload in space (payload does not include the cost of the rocket) is around $10,000 per pound. That's $10,000 per Big Mac. Some rockets may do a bit better than that, but until we achieve some currently unimaginable improvement in the ability to generate energy to escape earth's gravity, we won't be able to go very far in space except in very high-priced programs. The second problem is travel time. The nearest star after the sun is 3.9 light years away. The speed of light is the universal speed limit as far as we know. We can't travel anywhere close to that fast anyway, so as far as traveling to the stars, even with nearly infinite energy, we still essentially can't get there. I loved Star Trek. On that show they solved the energy problem with "dylithium crystals", and solved the travel time problem with "warp engines". Those technologies are still in the realm of magic as far as we are concerned.
This isn't a reflection on the energy cost so much as the high labor low throughput nature of the industry. Costs will eventually come down (over the next several centuries), and its not like we're short of energy either.
You could reduce costs several orders of magnitude by flying several launches per day and amortizing costs. Fuel for the rockets is cheap, its the infrastructure and labor that is expensive.
This isnt a problem for civilization, its a problem for interstellar space opera. The solar system is ripe for conquest, and the stars are a matter of the long slow expansion through the kuiper belt and beyond. It just wont happen over several episodes.
Well, we dont need warp drive to escape earth, and nuclear power will serve the energy needs of space travel for some time.
I have to say that I am [conditionally] with NASAGuy on this one. The current technology of sending loads into space is just damn too ineffective. If I recall correctly over 90% of the fuel goes for lifting the fuel and the fuel tanks.
And with the little troubles down the road we are discussing, I simply don't see significant space exploration - not this century IMO. I too don't believe energy will be the problem, it is just the technology which is too far behind - and short of a breakthrough we're going to stay grounded.
But fuel isnt even close to 90% of the cost.
If you noticed, I allready said over the next several centuries. Its not just technology. Its lack of a demand for spaceflight, and lack of a global economy large enough to afford it.
"But fuel isnt even close to 90% of the cost."
The point was that 90% of the space vehicle weight is pure waste. With bigger weight come huge thrusters, support structures etc. Overall you need a 1000 tonnes rocket to send 1 tonne of useful load into space - and the 99.9% fixed component gets pricy. For example, if we could launch space cargo with some kind of elecromagnetic thrusters here on Earth, each kilogram send to space would cost just $2 - the cost of the electricity to reach escape velocity.
Oh sure, ten thousand years from now humans may be much more rare, with all of the sentient machines demanding ever larger shares of resources.
Right, like all the other industrial species that went extinct over the ages.
Dezakin,
Here is proof positive that Humans will eat stars.
We also consume Lucky Charms, cocaine and State of the Union adresses.
Here's to the stars, to ethanol, and beyond.
Cheers. Bottoms up. :-)
I totally forgot.
"We" are the only creatures in the universe that have brains and use tools to improve our environment.
Our most powerful tool is the tool of denial and delusion --our amazing ability to convince ourselves that we are "special", that a diety who gets "tired" after less than 7 days of work in one small corner of the Universe chose us to be the special case, the exception.
When in doubt, post a picture of a monkey and a bunch of non-sequiter self important nonsense I guess.
You got it. It's called a mirror.
Peace. :-)
Geez, David (dmathews1), I'll bet you're a lot of fun at a party, eh?
Everyone has an axe to grind. I disagree with so many points in this article, also the tenor of the message itself. For example:
The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal...
My pov? Climate disaster is now inevitable, even if we stopped burning coal altogether. To suggest that we can run through the rest of the natural gas and oil with limited consequences is irresponsible. Yes, it is inevitable that oil and gas will continue to be used, but that is not the point. Already the effects of global warming and sea level rise are being felt across the globe. Human activity is undoubtedly exacerbating the problem. This makes it sound like if we stop using coal and go green with solar, wind, and nuclear everything will be just peachy. I strongly disagree. Conservation is the answer, reduced consumption is the only way. If we do not start conservation efforts immediately they will be going CTL and coal gasification whole hog before mid-century. Mark my words, if they don't cut back now, it will be a catastrophe, maybe it will anyway, but at least with conservation the world has a fighting chance.
Irresponsible? The limited consequence is a logical result of the limited resource base. Hansen shows the potential atmospheric CO2 concentration from burning the remaining oil and gas - it appears to be of