212 comments on Dr James Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
212 comments on Dr James Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
In spite of projections close to CERA's, it's getting harder and harder to sustain the CO2 concentration scenarios used by these people up to now.
Of course they still need to check their coal projections, peaking by the end of the century, almost 50 years later than technical projections.
Still, even if the Business-As-Usual scenario comes to be true for Coal, we'll pass the 500 ppm mark well in to the second half of the century. That leaves Peak Oil clearly as a much more pressing problem than CO2 emissions.
CO2 emissions is a problem now. Because the feedback effects could kill us. By the time we take action, the biosphere could already have lost its capacity to restore the damage.
And because it will take so long to deal with the CO2 emissions of very long lived equipment: power plants last 50 years, cars last 15 years, planes last 30+ years, etc. China has something like 100 coal plants under construction, and once built, carbon sequestration is that much harder to implement (to the point where it will probably never be implemented on those plants).
Peak oil? It's a big unknown. My own view is that we will hit PO (by the definition of an exhaustible resource) but more likely in 2020-30 than on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (Deffyes' date, I believe).
There are a *lot
of alternatives to conventionally produced oil out there: tar sands in Canada, heavy oil in Venezuala, the Fischer-Tropf coal-to-oil process, NGLs. All of these can, and will be scaled heavily (Canada alone will be 5 m b/d). And there is still Arctic oil, deep water oil, plus further exploration and production in Africa.But note the CO2 consequences of widespread coal-to-oil projects.
The state-owned oil companies that control most of the world's oil resources are underinvested and undermanaged. Saudi Aramco is perhaps the best, but in Mexico, Russia, Iran, Venezuala etc, there are serious issues. So there is likely to be more oil squeezed out there.
* peak gas, or at least accessible peak gas, worries me more, oddly. We can substitute gas for oil in a lot of applications, but we don't have ready substitutes for gas (except more coal!). And from Simmons gas graphs at least, 'old gas fields don't fade away, they just die'. We don't readily have the transport infrastructure to get the gas from where it is, to where it is needed, even if we do have that gas.
Your view is not supported either by data or mathematics. There's presently no information to counter the reasoning that we've passed the midpoint of depletion for Convencional Oil in 2005.
You should also explain that increase in Unconventional Oil production if you're aware of the Gas constraints in America.
Oil demand has risen since then. Inventories haven't fallen, as far as I am aware.
Prices have fallen.
If you have rising demand, and stable inventories, then supply has risen.
There is enough gas in Canada for tar sands needs, especially if you count in the Mackenzie Delta and Arctic gas reserves. There might not be enough gas to keep Ontario's lights on, but there is enough gas for tar sands.
Totale is looking at building a nuclear reactor in the tar sands to supply steam.
Luis is talking about conventional oil.
How long tar sands production/unconventional sources can keep up with a 4-5% decline rate in conventional oil production is the big question.
Sorry folks, but it looks like basic supply and demand laws are functioning... and will be at least for the observable future.
LOL - I missed this gem.
Please set the scene for us at the Empire Club as the PM of Canada attempts to explain to his audience that in order for tar sand ops to continue, they must freeze!
NRCAN pegs a 'possible' tripling of production to 3mmbbl/d by 2020 but I highly doubt that as water and NatGas usage rates (let alone the fact that we are using gold to make lead) are completely unsustainable.
The GHG impact of the whole affair accounts for 1/3 of total Canadian inputs - 1/3!
Suffice to say there are already calls for a moratorium on expansion by the city, native groups, greens and opposition parties alike.
I agree by 2020 3m b/d is pushing the infrastructure to its limits. But by 2040 or so, 5m b/d seems very possible.
On the natural gas question, what I have is the data point that 0.8 mcf is needed to produce one barrel of oil from tar sands. (that was in the fact sheet for one of the income trusts).
5m b/d is 1.825bn b/d pa, which is therefore 1.46bn mcf. I haven't done the reserves comparison (which would have to include the Mackenzie Delta and offshore Arctic Reserves) but this doesn't seem to be impossible. And there is the possibility of using 'mini nuke' nuclear reactors as steam sources.
Water is tricky, but again not impossible. 1. better recycling of water 2. pipe it from further away.
I suspect carbon sequestration will be used for the later plants, to reduce CO2 emissions.
At some price for oil, the political constraints can be bought off. As Alberta's population rises, it will get more and more difficult for a Federal Government to ignore that electoral impact, and Alberta itself needs that development and investment. When the Feds and the Provinces get aligned, things happen (think the reforms to the Canada Pension Plan).
This statement is nonsensical, moreover, you completely hand wave the moratorium calls away.
Meanwhile, the Mackenzie Delta pipeline is already held up by the D'nay nation nor have we covered how said pipeline is going to traverse a tundra of buckling permafrost.
At the current slope of the CO2 line, we will pass 500 ppm in 85 years.
But at the rate at which CO2 emissions are increasing, (the second derivative), it will be less than 50 years-- the rate of CO2 emissions is accelerating.
Assuming world GDP grows in the next 44 years as it has since 1950 (2.2% pa real) then world GDP will be 2.7 times what it is now in 2050. At the post 1990 rate (2.9%) it will be something like 3.7 times.
That would imply a CO2 growth pa of something like 4-5ppm (ie rising less quickly than GDP).
What the Stern Review says is that scientists think 450ppm is probably the safe level, beyond which we should not go.
It then says that is no longer practicable or achievable, so it assumes 550ppm is what we should aim for.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/999/76/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf
If we hit Peak Oil, my suspicion is that CO2 emissions will accelerate because the only practical substitute with current technology is coal.
You should read a bit more of the information here at TOD to understand how unlikely that is.
The structural danger is global warming (because of the uncertainty of a planet with a radically destabilised climate).
Peak Oil? Some day. When I don't think anyone knows.
* remembering what compound growth does. a 1% change pa, sustained, has huge consequences
Matt Simmons once said: "I'm sixty, I've never needed medical care; can I say that I'll never need to go to the doctor?"
Of course he can't, at least with the pathologist he has an appointment.
I'm getting weary of this cornucopian discourse. I'd recommend the reading of prof. Ayres' work or of prof. Charlie Hall.
At least you seem to know that it won't be in the next decade (contrary to maths).
It will come (definition of an exhaustible resource). At which point we will be forced onto backstop technologies (whose primary danger is that they produce CO2 in massive quantities). The Chinese are already going down this route.*
What I do know is that many of the world's oil fields are currently exploited with bad technology. There is no way that the kind of intense effort that has been brought to the North American market has been brought to Russia, the Middle East and Africa or even parts of Latin America.
How much there is out there I don't think anyone knows. I don't buy 'cornucopian' arguments but I don't buy doomsayer ones either.
* as I said previously, peak gas worries me a bit more. Because the underlying hypothesis, that we have 20 years more gas than oil might be wrong, and (anecdotally from Simmons) gas production falls off much faster than oil production. And the world's gas is not as easily accessible because of the infrastructure issues. And gas is the clean fuel-- the alternatives are all dirtier.
PO is threatening us to lose some quality of life (good bye SUVs), being of suspicios value anyway. GW is threatening the very ecosystem we live in. And yes, I'm also worried, actually horrified by people thinking that the natural constraints on production will "do the job for us" as long as handling GW.
Left unchecked the immediate answer to PO will be coal and tar sands. Statements like "we will never reach 5 mln.bpd from tar sand" are naive, even more - they are close to irresponsible. Never? Do you have any idea how our spoiled society will react to $200/barrel and gasoline rationing? If we dare to face it, the really "incovenient truth" is that we have 40,000 billion boe of fossil fuels, readily accessible in the ground. Some time in future we will add oil shales and gas hydrates to this, likely rounding that to 100,000 bboe. We've burnt just 2,000 or just 2% so far, burning the rest 98%, or converting one form to another is just a matter of scale and economic incentative which will certainly appear. We know how to do it, what on earth do you think will stop us from doing it?
As I understand it, the reactors in question are RBMK designs? ie graphite core? But with a different cooling system than Chernobyl? That's an argument for close monitoring (as you said: 1 bn euros already spent on additional safety features) not for shutdown.
Whilst you and I have argued the toss on new nukes, I am the first to admit that existing plants should be run for as long as feasible, as the alternatives are entirely unpalatable (bunker oil, lignite, etc.) especially given the looming Sibero-European gas shortage.
If you live in Atlanta now you might find the chapter on the Southern Company quite interesting in the book below-- it's a good light read, well written if layman-oriented (paperback out soon). I would be the first to admit that persuading them to build new nukes, in place of old coal, is a good idea!
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=688428
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Coal-Behind-Americas-Future/dp/0618319409
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/709
Nope. No RBMK reactors were built outside former USSR. The reactors in question are of the VVER-440 type, a predaccessor of VVER-1000, which is currently the standart of the Russian nuclear industry.
RBMK is a dual-purpose fast neutron reactor and therefore the soviets were not interested in exporting the technology. How close were the relations with the former socialist block, USSR wanted to keep a monopoly on the nuclear weapons and did not want other countries to get the ability to produce plutonium.
AFAIK the only functional RBMK reactor outside Russia now is in Ignalina, Lithuania due to be closed down in 2009 (the first unit was closed in 2005, and the last reactor from the Chernobyl plant was closed down recently).
The Balkan situation for this winter is quite worrisome indeed, but probably will be alleviated to some extent next year after Romania starts its reactor in Cherna Voda. My relatives are reporting for electricity price hikes which are hitting the lower and middle class quite badly (the average income stands at ~200 euro/month, while electricity rates have gone up to euro 0.11c/kwth recently). The problem promises to be excaberated by the problems with import of coal from Russia and Ukraine. The whole region lacks NG and oil reservs, while coal is small and of poor quality.
OTOH the question is a little bit overblown by the bulgarian authorities, which hope to achieve some renegotiation of the agreements with EU, or at least to postpone the closure of the 2 units. I have to scoff at this, because the reality is that they missed the train by some 10 years for this; trying to catch it now is not improving a lot our image within the EU.
The good news is that the 2 1000MW units in Belene are in an advanced preparation stage and will most likely be built withing 5 to 7 years.
Nothing wrong with the basic design (a friend of mine works for NASA: the Russians are good at big technology like rockets, better rocket boosters in some ways than the Americans-- they don't take huge leaps, do everything by increments)
but
the Soviets (better word) let themselves down on maintenance, operation, safety.
And there was an arrogance re design, eg in the absence of a proper containment building.
In Eastern Europe there is really no easy alternative to nuclear. There is coal, but we all know the problems with that. And there is Russian gas, which the Russians themselves don't have enough of (and are prepared to play politics with Ukraine about).
Wind is pretty much a nonstarter, I think (memories of the European wind atlas, the wind resource is at the fringes of the European continent, not at its heart). Ditto solar (except for water heating, where Bulgaria should be in a good position?).
Hydro the problem is the snow melt is not reliable-- I know this is the problem in Greece. So the Greeks use lignite -- ugh.
Crete and some of the islands are good for wind. Although there are migratory bird routes. When I was in Crete I noticed that there main power plant is an oil fired thing-- you can see the layer of haze across Heraklion Bay. It is a natural for more wind and for pumped storage, and helpfully, the locals don't think windmills are a blot.
true enough. I can argue though that Chernobyl was such a huge hit to their self-esteem they are still trying to recover. It is of course a bare statement but according to some sources I've read the current state of the Russian nuclear industry (in terms of safety and maintainance) is at least equal to its western competitors. Unfortunatley much of the evolution in thinking comes after a crisis has been reached...
There is coal
Coal and hydro are pretty much utilised. Some excess of coal is left in Poland and Ukraine, but is not that much. NG fortunately is used only for heating and industrial applications.
except for water heating, where Bulgaria should be in a good position?
Hmmmm could be valid for Greece, but hardly Bg. The country is too far from the Gulf Stream and the climate is typical continental - hot summers, cold winters. The average sunshine is not that good. There has been a shift of the climate recently to more tropical - with longer rainy summers, but the winters seem to be getting colder and drier. The wonders of climate change.
Wind is pretty much a nonstarter
In theory we can build some wind, but in practice it is hardly an option. It is too expensive energy source for short of cash countries to choose (after you count all costs) and the only significant resources are offshore - not an option for Hungary or Chech Republic of course.
Overall we don't really have much choices other than nuclear (or building some additional coal). The region is hoping for a healthy economic growth and the energy problems need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
It's obvious from your post that you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject.
Natural Resources Canada predicts that maybe, tar sand production will hit 3mmbbl/d by 2020 - maybe. An assertion from the Federal 06' Energy Outlook based entirely on below ground assumptions of existing ops.
Water, Nat/Gas decline, infrastructure, labor, cost, EROEI, GW and public sentiment as far as GHG emmissions are concerned are just some of the factors NOT considered in this outlook.
The city of Fort McMurray wants a moratorium, the native peoples want a moratorium, the NDP want a moratorium, environmental groups want a moratorium, all want a moratorium until such time as the stated factors above can be addressed.
And you call my statement (which didn't include the word 'never') naive and irresponsible?
If you just allow a friendly advice - be careful when you base your long term predictions on circumstances which may turn out rather short-lived.