The Oil Drum | Responses to Salon & an open thread

186 comments on Responses to Salon & an open thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Halfin on March 28, 2006 - 9:36pm

Most of those comments are all about coal. While it is important to keep in mind that Peak Oil will not have that much effect on electricity, at the same time there are big problems in planning to switch to coal as a general substitute for oil.

The biggest one didn't seem to be mentioned clearly. Even if we don't care about the environment, even if we had plenty of water and everything else, there is a limit to how quickly we can ramp up production of coal. It's just like with "green" alternative energy sources, or tar sands, or other alternatives. Oil usage is so enormous that if production starts dropping at 5% per year, we would have to ramp up the alternative source at an unrealistically high rate in order to make up for the lost oil.

Here's a chart from the EIA showing US energy consumption by fuel:

We get twice as much energy from oil as coal (three times as much from oil+gas, which is also threatening to peak soon), so a 5% drop in oil means coal must increase by 10%. Recently coal has been increasing at 1.3%, so we have to increase coal production 8 times faster than projections. That means an enormous investment in new mines, new miners, coal mining tools and technology, etc. And not only production, the infrastructure for transporting it has to be ramped up, as well as whatever technology is going to convert it to oil.

Much of that has a long lead time so it will take years before we could realistically be increasing coal production at that rate. It's an enormous job, and while it can no doubt be done given enough time, if this year is the peak then there is no time. We would have a period of years where oil is decreasing and coal and alternatives are not yet ramping up enough to make up the difference.

This was discussed in detail on this board last year. Maybe somebody can find the links.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on March 28, 2006 - 9:44pm

Way to go, Halfin, good comment. Education, which is what you're doing here, may save us but probably it will take a SHTF situation. Now if the powers that be would get into gear on this....

And CO2 emissions... Oh My!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DIYer on March 28, 2006 - 9:53pm

By my rough stoichiometry a kilogram of coal becomes something like 3.67 kilograms of CO2. Which would occupy 1867 liters at STP.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mikey on March 28, 2006 - 10:08pm

That means an enormous investment in new mines, new miners, coal mining tools and technology, etc. And not only production, the infrastructure for transporting it has to be ramped up, as well as whatever technology is going to convert it to oil.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhh! It will be a nightmare trying to replace the oil we need once depletion starts to set in.

On the other hand, we could drive less.

We could drive a lot less. And be happier doing it.

A lot of discussion at TOD reminds me of a super-obese character in the habit of eating daily: 12 buckets of fried chicken, 3 trays of mashed potatoes, 2 gallons of ice cream, half a cow, a bushel of baked beans, 5 cakes, 9 big gulps, and 2 pans of collard greens ... raising a huge hullabaloo because due to reduced circumstances he's going to have to switch to a more sensible diet.

I just don't think we need to use anywhere near the amount of oil we're using. My response to peak oil is "bring it on."

Maybe I'm wrong and we really do need to use that much oil. I'll have to see that with my own eyes (thru events unfolding) to believe it, though.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pamur on March 29, 2006 - 3:26am

Your reaction is right on. Right now coal (and all minerals) are extracted, produced and distributed using a petroleum power based system. To ramp up coal extraction for existing uses would require more infrastructure and that would have to compete with other petroleum needs for diminishing oil supplies. If we are going to use coal for various new products, new infrastructure for extraction, production and distribution of those new products will have to be built. Again, in the face of declining oil. It will be impossible to make that happen if we are operating in a post-peak oil world. My take is that we won't have viable alternatives until they are completely produced and delivered economically using only alternative fuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jamie on March 29, 2006 - 10:46am

You are right of course. Just switch US over to the European averages for transport and save more than 10% of the world daily oil consumption. Where's the problem? The european way of life is not so bad, some may think better. Ah just a minute though, what does everyone do while you replace 250m cars - even Toyota may struggle with that one. Just possibly the price and availability of steel may marginally hinder the rail track laying on the scale required. The problem is not that US citizens could not live on less oil its the getting from here to there that may be a little taxing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

writerman on March 29, 2006 - 3:48pm

Yeah, I know it sounds like an obvious and tempting idea, reduce U.S. oil and petrol consumption to European levels and save a lot. I agree it's worth trying, but there are some problems associated with it that one has to keep in mind. Western Europe is substantially smaller than the continental United States and population density is higher and most of us are crowded into big urban areas. I've tried driving long distances across Europe in a small car and a big limosine, and believe me the limosine was preferable. America is a big place and America has enormous suburbs, with highly undeveloped mass transport systems compared to most of Western Europe. Don't get the impression I'm being crital for the sake of it. I just think the whole question is, unfortunately, very complex and requires a great deal of planning, organisation and hard choices.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jimvj on March 30, 2006 - 10:16am

As many have pointed out, the passenger-miles per gallon nearly doubles if the number of commuters per car doubles. The saddest part of watching the gridlock every work day in any city is not just the number of gas guzzlers, but that most of them have a single occupant.

There was a time when companies provided vans and fostered commuter pools. That mind-set will return once the price/scarcity of gasoline gets critical.

The bad news is that the US is extremely profligate; the good news - at least for a while - is that we can cut back on waste without too great a hit on lifestyle.

The question is whether we will use the time these waste-cutting measures give to mitigate - as Hirsch puts it - the PO crunch.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

billp on March 28, 2006 - 10:10pm

03/20/2006
Big Stone Plant Doesn't Have Enough Coal
It produces power everyday for three companies, but over the past week that output has dropped. The Big Stone power plant in Big Stone City has scaled back output to 75 percent of it's capacity, because of a shrinking coal pile.

The Big Stone power plant usually has an emergency stockpile of 200 thousand tons of coal. But it was a much smaller pile Monday, and those who work at the Big Stone plant say they haven't seen a situation this serious in a while.

Plant Manager Jeff Endrizzi says, "Nothing like this where it's an extended period and we don't see an end in sight as it sits today."

The Big Stone plant runs almost completely on coal. And right now, the plant only has 10 days worth of coal stockpiled, compared to the 30 days it usually has on hand. Coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin is in high demand because it is low-sulfur.

http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail5440.cfm?Id=0,46855

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SqueakyRat on March 29, 2006 - 3:21pm

Off topic, I guess, but is there actually a place called Big Stone City? Gives me an idea: let's pass a constitutional amendment to rename the United States "Big Stupid Country."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on March 29, 2006 - 4:54pm

While here in America we do have the ability to change our government via amendments, I don't think that one will pass. I have an idea, why don't you go to the Congo or Somalia, or the Balkans. All of them are very nice this time of year and you won't be troubled with "stupid" neighbors. Sure you may be killed or raped or torture or even forced into slavery but you won't have to endure names like Big Stone City. Good luck in your travels.

www.travisa.com

here you can get a passport in 24 hours...bye bye now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tedman on March 28, 2006 - 11:23pm

The problem with the "status quo forever" cultists like Crooked Timber is that they fail to understand some fairly simple points which make the coal solution implausible:

(1) We do not need to maintain current rates of production, but we would need to GROW production, every year, year in and year out. Which means doubling consumption after a known period of time (depending on the average rate of growth). If rates of energy consumption flatlined forever, we would be in permanent recession (with massive annual dieoff worldwide, given current birth rates world wide). The planet cannot have more people and more economic growth every year with flat energy inputs (even with increased intensity as has been the case for the US for some time)

(2) As Halfin points out, we would not need to just continue with current INCREASING rates of coal consumption, we would need to ACCELERATE it, to make up for the loss in energy from declining rates of oil and gas production.

(3) Useable energy is more concentrated in oil than in coal [I am not sure I am saying this correctly], so to get those useable BTU's from coal to replace BTU's lost from oil and gas ain't no easy trick.

(3) Jevon's paradox remains in effect. The per capita rate of energy consumption in North America has been essentially flat for decades, yet our individual use of energy is much more complex today than it was thirty years ago. We have made great strides in the efficiency of individual consumer products, but we made up for those savings by using more consumer products rather than less energy per person (we now have people with land line phones, cell-phones, pagers, blackberries, and a laptop -- thirty years ago, land lines were all that was practical). Add population growth to the problem, and well, we have quite a problem don't we...

(4) North Americans live in low-density, unsustainable, suburban dorms and are ABSOLUTELY dependent upon cars for survival (enough said).

The problems we face are tremendous, much, much bigger than the health care crisis. THAT really is an easy problem to fix. Unlike health care, people do not understand the energy basics. There is a SEVERE lack of understanding of the basics I outline above. This misunderstanding drives a lot of the silly, ignorant responses of Crooked Timber and others.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.