XTL: Promise and Peril
Posted by Robert Rapier on February 9, 2007 - 12:15pm
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: coal, global warming, gtl, natural gas [list all tags]
I have stated on several occasions that I believe global warming is a greater immediate threat than Peak Oil. As long as the demand is there, energy companies will strive to supply fuel to the marketplace. To meet the demand, we will develop tar sands, even though doing so will consume enormous quantities of natural gas. We will turn natural gas and coal indirectly (and inefficiently) into ethanol. Finally, we will turn vast quantities of carbon sources into fuel via what I term "XTL" technologies. XTL technologies consist of a partial oxidation (POX) reaction followed by the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction. When the POX feedstock is natural gas, this is referred to as a gas-to-liquids (GTL) process. If the feedstock is coal or biomass, this is referred to as CTL, or BTL respectively.
The FT reaction is a bit more complex than the POX reaction. You can find in-depth information on the FT reaction here. In short, the FT reaction converts syngas generated via the POX reaction into a distribution of long-chain hydrocarbons. The yield of hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel range is very good, making this reaction an ideal way to extend the fossil fuel economy (albeit, as a diesel economy).
The Promise
At present, the economics for GTL are far more favorable than for CTL or BTL. There are enormous reserves of natural gas throughout the world. Worldwide reserves of natural gas are estimated to be 6,200 trillion cubic feet, of which 3,000 trillion cubic feet are estimated to be stranded. (Reserves are considered to be stranded if it is uneconomical or impractical to get them to market.) This is enough stranded natural gas to produce 300 billion barrels of fuel, according to Syntroleum.
GTL is not a pipe dream. The process is technically viable, having been demonstrated on numerous occasions. It is economically viable depending on the price spread between natural gas and oil. Despite the fact that the capital costs for GTL plants are approximately twice those of conventional oil refineries, a number of projects have been announced in Qatar. Plants are being built, and the fuel produced will help supply some of the shortfall that Peak Oil will generate.
The Peril
Of course there is a catch. GTL is not all that efficient. There are efficiency losses during both the POX and the FT processes. It would be far more efficient to run automobiles directly on the natural gas. Due to the fact that the gas is stranded, this is obviously not an option. But the efficiency losses are significant. According to the Syntroleum link, it takes 10,000 cubic feet of gas to make 1 barrel of fuel. 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas contain roughly 10 million BTUs, but a barrel of fuel contains only around 5.5-6 million BTUs. Forty percent of the BTUs are either lost as radiant heat, or turned to steam and consumed in the GTL plant. Unless carbon sequestration is in place (unlikely), all of those BTUs wind up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. On top of that, the BTUs from the barrel of fuel are going to wind up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after the fuel is combusted.
The reason I find this more frightening than Peak Oil is that I think this path is inevitable. We will make and use GTL fuel, as inefficient as the process may be. Carbon dioxide emissions are likely to accelerate in our quest to maintain affordable energy. As stranded gas supplies are consumed and GTL production peaks, there is CTL, with the same efficiency problems, waiting in the wings. I believe the fossil fuel economy will be with us for a long time to come.
I simply see no slowdown to the exponential rate at which we are dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and it scares me. The outcome of this experiment is unpredictable. The Sahara Desert was once lush with vegetation and teemed with wildlife. Consider the impact if this is the fate of the Corn Belt of the Midwest. Yet I see no indication that we are going to veer from the path we have set. Something's eventually got to give.
-----------
You know what's really ironic? Jay's theories about sociobiology explain why almost everybody ignores his theories about sociobiology.
Acknowledging the sociobio conunudrum basically deep sixes any and all political agendas or, as Jay would call them, "normative programs." People come up with these normative programs in an attempt to increase their inclusive fitness. But in order to be able to sincerely convey their agenda they must ignore the sociobio aspects. I think this ignorance/self-deceoption often takes place where it is most effective: at the subconscious level.
The genetic-subconscious axis purposely prevents the person from consciously understanding the sociobio aspect of our conundurm in order to allow the person to raise their fitness via promoting their normative agenda.
It's also why my focus is on "saving one's own ass" or (less hyperbolicly) "saving the ass of one's own tribe." That means the 15-to-30 or so people closest to you.
Best,
Matt
What are you saving them from, Matt? Do you honestly expect to see mass death in your neighborhood sometime soon?
I think Matt's "Mass death" is perhaps hinging on the possible fracturing of the food networks that we in the US have made ourselves so dependent on. Losing one link in the chain will cripple big chunks of the works. When the grid goes down in a city for even a day or two, tons of frozen food gets landfilled. What if it tanks for a month?
Natural gas to residential users seems vulnerable.
Cross country trucking, same.
Fuel prices for agriculture...
I agree that none of these seems to be about to force a collapse altogether, but I envision typical Americans being unable to cope if they lose their access to frozen pizza and the juice to run thier microwaves and keep the diet coke cold.
We had an extended blackout here in DC after a bad storm 3 years ago--not the big northeast blackout--and people were utterly helpless. We modern Americans have essentially no skills to function if any one of our technological lifelines is cut.
So, I wonder, how long before people panic if they can't: drive their car, cook their food, buy food, take a shower, heat their home. Just one of these things breaking down will freak people out in a major way.
Not "mass death" right away, but the beginning of a growth curve of panic driven crime committed by people who would never have called themselves criminals in the current paradigm. Unprecedented anxiety that seems unresolvable will trigger a lot of bad behavior.
-Matt, DC
Were you in the area for the ice storm of '99? I spent three weeks without power, the 50% mark seemed to be about 1 week. Ice storms are usually noted for bringing neighbors one has never met together in a remarkable facsimile of community - mostly because some people have generators and some don't. There are quite a lot of nonspoilable dry and wet goods in one's home. Water could be tricky if it relies on electric pumps. I give the suburban neighorhood 8 weeks minimum (3-4 paychecks missed) cut off from the grid, the gas station, and the grocery store, before people begin to take note of who's a closet gun nut as much as they take note of who has a generator. The urban neighorhood... depends on location, but expect lines noone's seen since the fall of the USSR government store systems.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
If you believe that, then you have to believe a crash of civilization is the natural state (despite the rise of peaceful civilizations throughout the world and throughout history). What could explain this bizzare and humane trend? Ah, oil, a get out of jail free card.
If it were not for oil, we'd all be nasty brutish and dead.
But the fact is that these material advances were all due to plentiful energy, not due to the innate goodness of human beings. The "desperately wicked" character of mankind's heart never changed while these material advances were taking place, but was merely concealed from view for a time. We are now entering a time of history, however, where this basic human feature will be starkly revealed once again in all its raw ugliness, due to the impending epoch of energy scarcity.
Even if this were not true, though, it wouldn't affect my fundamental argument: Jeremiah's claim about the "desperate wickedness" of the hearts of human beings is just as true of Chinese, Indian, and Russian hearts as it is of American and Western European hearts.
If you think I am wrong, I challenge you to point out to me a discernible trend entailing self-sacrifice and cooperation in energy-related news of recent months - one that is sufficient to outweigh the manifest tendencies towards increasing antagonism and hostility in this sphere.
We will (chances are) never see that person again, but we do a little 'tit for tat' or 'golden rule' or 'game theory' behavior that we think will, indirectly, benefit us in the future.
I realize that is only 'energy' in the most primitive, muscular sense, holding the door open, but it all flows from there. ;-)
Are the Saudis and other profligately rich Middle East producers going to start giving away some of their oil for free to very poor countries who desperately need it? Are the Russians going to "play nice" and stop their energy-related bullying of the Europeans? Is the United States going to desist from hypocritically bullying the Russians for bullying the Europeans? Are the US and Venezuela going to desist from calling each other the "New Hitlers?" Are China and Japan going to start "playing nice" in the East China Sea anytime soon? Are all of these countries, and others besides, going to desist from their self-serving wrangling about where to build new pipeline routes across Eurasia? Are the rebels in Nigeria going to desist from their terrorism, and is the government of Nigeria going to "play nice" and give in to their legitimate demands? And so on and so forth....
Where is anyone "holding the door" for anyone else here - other than as relatively minor matters in the grand scheme of things? [And those who do "hold the door" for others, like Venezuela, are denounced for doing so on top of it all!!]
I think we've ended up in a different place than we started. Altruism and cooperation exist in societies. In times of national emergency we have had national energy programs (up to including rationing) to deal with it.
If we are sticking to the core, and expectation of human response to peak oil, I'd say that is primarily a national "let's pull together" issue. I expect a mix of competition and cooperation on the international scene, as we have seen throughout the last century. Sometimes that competition is quite unpleasant, as history shows.
I don't expect nations to lie down like lions and lambs, but neither to I expect nations to fall apart uniformly around the world (there is always the unfortunate, isolated, case: Northern Ireland, Lebanon, ...).
Humans, and the societies that emerge when you have a bunch of humans in a group, are quite different beasts. Humans can be, and are, altruistic towards each other but it's not clear that the same is true of societies, nations, corporations etc.
See Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society
"It may be possible, thought it is never easy, to establish just relations between individuals within a group purely by moral and rational suasion and accomodation. In inter-group relations this is practically an impossibility. The relations between groups must therefore be predominantely political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each groups posesses at least as much as by any rational and moral appraisal of comparative needs and claims of each group."
Odograph, I'm not in any way taking issue with your general point, but the example you gave is culturally limited, and I thought you might like to realize that. For example, in Hong Kong, people never hold doors open for others, and they are quite glad to shut the doors of the evelator in your face as you charge towards it (I once managed to enter an elevator that had been shut thus once - they couldn't go anywhere, my foot was stuck in the outer door - and I then greeted everyone present therein with the loud appellation 'Sh*theads!'. Yeah, it was a cultural thing. That's the point.)
The irony is this: re lifts, you are on the receiving end more often than otherwise, so it would actually be rational to hold open the lift door for strangers. You lose one second, but on balance you gain up to five minutes, if everyone behaves otherwise. Of course, no one behaves otherwise, so everyone spends their lives quickly shutting the elevator doors in strangers' faces for the benefit of one or two seconds.
In Hong Kong, you are told this sort of behaviour results because people are 'busy'. In fact, it is simply a form of rudeness or indifference, cultivated because everyone is generally subject to the same sort of behaviour.
Again, nothing to do with your general point. But something to remember for any of you who are headed East. Hold the lift door open for a lady and you will be greeted with (a) very profuse thanks or (b) the sort of indifference reserved for the obviously insane.
Phil, I think you may be confusing the reaction of the American government/military/industrial complex with the people of the country. I don't know where you live, but here in the midwest we just had the biggest, baddest icestorm in our recorded history. In the small city I live in (about 300,000 counting the surrounding burbs) we had 75,000 people without power for 3-12 days. One of the local DJs stayed on the air 24 hrs. a day for several days fielding calls from people who needed help of various kinds and the numerous calls from people offering help. Yes, there were a few "gougers", but people who still had electric took in strangers who had no heat/electricity, people who had wood offered it free to people who had fireplaces but no wood (same with kerosene, ect.), local motels/hotels offered reduced rates and even free lodging to people who had no heat/electricity or who had live powerlines or trees downed on their homes/cars until shelters could be set up. People with food took food to people who'd gotten stranded in their homes without food, etc., etc.
Granted it wasn't peak oil and there will be many more frightened, unprepared people who, if not given aid by neighbors, etc., may become violent if peak oil hits as hard as some of us expect. But what happened around here was very heartening to this old cynic. (Yes, since I have gas heat, I even opened my small home to three other people who I fed and feted - LOL.) And I suspect similar stories could be told across the country during the ice storms that hit. Most areas of the country have some history of self-reliance/helping each other out.
As for the afore mentioned govt./military/industrial complex, I suspect Katrina or worse will be the pattern of response to peak oil. But I wouldn't count out the average American just yet - Jeremiah's adage to the contrary or not.
Linda
This whole thread dealing with whether people are naturally altruistic or not is missing one important factor. The people helping each other in the ice storm or hurricanes ( We lost power for 3 months after Iniki) or other maladies that afflict us from time to time all have one thing in common. They all fully expect that things will soon return to "normal". The power will come back on, the grocery store will get refilled. The military will provide temporary clean water and food until things get back to "normal".
When there is no reasonable likelihood that "normal" will return, oil prices will get higher and higher, food will get more expensive and less available, unemployment will rise, electricity will get more expensive and/or unavailable, and the expectation is that this situation will not improve, then we will see how basically altruistic human beings truly are.
"If it were not for oil, we'd all be nasty brutish and dead."
Actually, there would be a hell of a lot less people, and thus a hell of a lot LESS suffering in the world. On the other hand, there'd be a lot less joy, music, culture, and hilarious jokes! This is something I was thinking of recently - the exponetial rise of humans is accompanied by a concomitant rise is suffering and joy. What is terrifying with climate change, peak oil, etc. is that we are nowhere near peak human suffering on planet earth!!!!
The ying and yang of it might be that while cooperation is the default in some (hopefully many) situations, we have other less nice rules which come to the fore at other times.
The commonly seen distinction between moral standards within a country, and those without, are well known. We see it right now as Americans do things to Iraqis that they would not do to Arizonans.
You can't get a species to deviate from its inherent nature to that far of a degree.
The only logical explanation is that humans are not inherently altruistic.
Best,
Matt
Humanity as a whole is neither altruistic or selfish. It is, at all times, both.
Because of this you can cherry pick selfish choices that have been made in the past and conclude that humanity is selfish. I could reciprocate. But since this isn't an either-or issue, we would both be pissing in the wind. And really, isn't there enough urine in the air already?
Yin and yang.
Some allow the good side, the self-sacrificing, altruistic, generous, kind side to prevail. For those, that IS their inherent nature. These are few in number.
Some allow their baser instincts, predatory greed, lust, and anger, to dominate. For those, that IS their inherent nature. These are many in number.
Some fall in the middle, with elements of both, as their natural instinct. The unpredictability of which side will dominate in a given circumstance is the great unknown.
This is the largest group of all.
The internal battle between ego and id, good and bad, angel and devil, whatever you choose to call it, has been philosophized and extrapolated on since ancient times.
Presently, the it is second group that is in charge.
Seeing as you once publicly failed to recognize the name of E.O. Wilson on this very forum, I for one think you are disqualified from making sociobiology-based arguments.
If you took such arguments seriously, you would already see the truth of what is proclaimed by your opponents ('it isn't a binary issue'). Altruism and selfishness have a lot in common. And therein lies the problem.
Sociobiology is embarrassed by many people who espouse it.
No species is inherently altruistic. It's impossible for such species to evolve.
Oh yeah. I think peak oil will hit us first, probably this summer with the second or third cat 5 hurricane. But global warming is not far behind... a sort of one-two punch, to insure that we live in interesting times.
People borrow from these sciences, but as often happens in the general press, and especially when an agenda is involved, they might borrow slices that suit them.
Inclusive fitness is real, but it's amusing that this page describes its principle achievement is in explaining altruism in animal populations:
http://www.personalityresearch.org/evolutionary/inclusive.html
I find that amusing because the peak oilers who borrow from these sciences expect anything but altruism from the population!
And inclusive fitness has been proven over and over. Hamiltons rule has been attempted to be falsified and it has not been. It stands as one of the core tenets of biology.
And I would not say that evolutionary psychology is the latest dogma coming out of academia. Its quite the minority.
Pick up Consilience by EO Wilson. I think in 30-40 years, he will be viewed by society as Einstein is today.
Jay just connected the dots. And he didnt read 'a few books'. He read hundreds. I am not a cultist or doomer. Im a hedge fund trader turned phd student. Jay is a friend of mine and while I dont agree with everything he says, he is one of the most thorough, wise people I have ever come across.
I know the principles of biological psychology strike some as crude and obtuse but they are slowly being 'proven' in real world experiments, increasingly on humans and primates using neuro-economic tests. The problem is that people believing in intelligent design, etc are growing at a much faster pace than these science based persons (and I dont mean genetically, I mean based on our cultural messages, e.g President Bush)
He makes essentially two points. The first is that science is a superior way of coming to know about the world and it will inexorably displace less effective approaches such as history, literature, religion, ethics, etc.
His second point is that science has shown that human beings are basically clever monkeys, that the kind of rational behavior supposed by history, literature, etc., that is just an illusion. It's just a superficial appearance generated by the true underlying dynamics of selfish genes.
I remember this sentence in the book where Wilson acknowledges that these two points are conflict - after all, science is a facet of human behavior! But he dismisses the conflict. Basically, he views science as an activity that transcends human nature.
I guess the idea is that science transcends human nature in a way that is similar to how real numbers transcend rational numbers. There are vastly more real numbers than there are rational numbers - that's the mind-boggling result proved by Cantor. Yet the real numbers can be constructed from the rationals - as the limits of various convergent infinite series of rationals. Similarly, I guess science transcends human nature because there is some approximately infinite process of winnowing out flawed hypotheses to yield the pure gold of scientific truth.
Will there ever come a time when our scientific knowledge is sufficiently tested that it can be relied upon to answer all questions that arise? How will we know when we have arrived at that point? Are there scientific theories today that are so well tested that they can be relied upon 100% and don't need any more testing?
Wilson's book is founded on absurdity. Science is founded on scepticism. When you stop testing your hypotheses, you have stopped being scientific. The very process of science is an utterly human affair, incorporating history and literature and ethics at the deepest levels of the scientific process. Science isn't about partitioning theories into the true and the false. Science uses theories as tools to explore the world. Some tools are more versatile or reliable than other tools, some tools maybe even render some other tools obsolete.
Settling on some pet theory and devoting oneself to building up reinforcing arguments to justify one's adherence to that theory - that's the intellectual equivalent of building and stockpiling a bomb shelter to enable one to survive the coming crises. They are both self-defeating strategies. It's like drowning oneself in a pool of formeldehyde to achieve immortality.
The world is a bewildering and frightening place. Somehow a responsive and curious approach seems to allow more room for joy than does locking oneself into a physical or intellectual fortress.
your comment is very similar to Matts above that we are limited in accessing truths in sociobiology because of sociobiologys precepts
---------------------
Not the least bit religious but as the Bible says, "he who brings wisdom brings sorrow."
Given Jay's last few postings to his Q and A, I'd have to say this is pretty accurate. I tried to cheer him up by telling hime I would make sure he is taken care of if he visists me once I have my harem up and running. But I think he had logged off the list by that point.
Best,
Matt
Nope, just pulling stuff out of my ass. However, I do poke it quite a bit before flinging it at others.
I can post some pics if you would like.
Best,
Matt
In any case, I would expect the perception of increasing threats to people's group indentification/memberships through either resource shortage, direct military threats, or both to give rise to increasing "group think" that is most likely to be manifest in a rise in religous fervor--see success of Bush and the general rise in public religious popularity/intensity/power after 9/11 and the ongoing religous overtones in the "War on Terror".
That depends on one's perspective. I personally prefer living in hurricane country over tornado country, because I can plan a bit better for the hurricane. The tornado will strike unpredictably. That's why they always scared me more. I can envision transitioning to life as fossil fuels dwindle. Like preparing for a hurricane, I believe I can survive Peak Oil. But it's going to be a different story if I just happen to live in a part of the country that is the next Sahara Desert, or crops start to fail across the country because of unpredictable weather.
I guess the bottom line is that I know we have the means to sustain ourselves on carbon fuels for a long time to come with GTL and then CTL, along with tar sands and heavy oils. But the longer we go down that road, the more chance we take of absolutely wrecking entire ecosystems indefinitely. And we can't tell where those tornadoes are going to hit.
RR
The economy tanked from mid-seventies to early eighties and it could be argued that rising energy cost was a main contributor. The coming period will be even worse because the money going for that stranded NG won't be going to countries who will necessarily recycle it through the US economy like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar did back then.
The US government is now talking about renegotiating the GOM oil leases so they can capture some of the "windfall" profit taxes from the seven sisters (or what remains of them). I have no love for the big oil companies but if we take away their current profits, how can they invest the billions necessary to finance XTL projects? What investor wants to buy shares in such a company? Governments are all looking at their energy resources with a buzzard's eye.
Our transition to oil from coal was accomplished (at least initially) without massive infrastructure investment. Oil to XTL is an entirely different beast.
I agree with your prediction that CO2 sequestration won't ever happen. Especially so if the NG feedstock is on the soil of a poor third world country. Does anyone suppose the UN is going to enforce such a provision?
As you know, step changes in real systems tend to produce oscillations and turbulence. I think that's what we have here. Trying to predict the outcome is an exercise in futility past saying it will be disorderly and probably quite unpleasant from a human's point of view.
As energy costs rise to the point that they meaningfully discourage consumption, economies will stagnate and then start to contract (negative growth). A long period of slow contraction, or a even a fairly short period of signifcant contraction, and the system will fail.
Why?
Fiat currency is predicated on the creation of debt and credit. Each monetary amount in circulation actually correlates to a debt. When debts are repaid, money is removed from circulation. Investments rely on positive returns to generate the interest needed to service those debts.
In a constantly shrinking economy, there is little or no incentive to invest (no growth expected), nor is there growth to allow the servicing of those debts. Lending grinds to a halt. As existing debts are paid off, money is taken out of circulation. Eventually, no money remains in circulation.
And this, my friends, represents an optimistic, steady state outcome, without currency crash, panics, runs, collapses, mass bankruptcies, or other critical-mass events.
It is a fallacy to assume that economic growth requires increased energy usage. It highly possible to have energy use decline because of more efficient use of energy while growth continues.
I think that there are opportunities to use energy more efficiently. What I question is the commitment and competence of the powers that be to lead us toward a sustainable future.
Hurricanes destroy power, communications, road, and social networks over large areas and those networks take time to repair. Tornados do a more thorough job over small areas and repair or evacuation is easier. Just dig a basement and don't worry about it.
Isn't there considerable overlap between hurricane country and tornado country? Isn't nearly all of the US which lies within hurricane country also hit very often by tornados? The killer tornado which hit Florida last week followed the same path a one of the hurricanes a few years ago.
Probably the default case is that when the oil runs short we will switch to the next abundant fossil fuel supply which is coal. NG is probably just a short term blip.
The trick is achieving a non-default sustainable solution.
RR- I agree that the big big,long term picture is global warming plus perhaps Gore's film & other nations addressing this issue will happen whereas focusing on peak oil I fear will perpetually be covered up until it too late, amidst war.. Thanks.
Super G -the last several days I lose the left side of posts .Kinda like as I write a comment , but even while justreading /scrolling/manuvering the thread.
It seems that the competitive Enterprise Institute wwww.cei.org is gearing up to counter Al Gore's film on global warming with an ad blitz. I read the bios of the staff and they are almost all ex-Republican Hill staff members. I try to like Republicans but it seems to me in order to be a true Republican you must care more about yourself then other people or the world in which you live. They sicken me.
There's one thing we should agree on, because it is around us in the present. That is that human societies are not excellent at preemptive action on environmental and resource problems. We are good maybe (CFC bans, Kyoto) but not excellent.
The open question is how well, and agressively, we will respond as environmental and resource problems become more pressing.
What you've really made above is a prediction, based more on your model of human behavior, than on your model of climate change, peak oil, or etc.
... maybe because I carry some native optimism in my grab-bag of genetic biases, I'm not ready to close the door on late action, as direct evidence becomes visible.
And I can support that with recent evidence. The possible extinction of polar bears seems to be mobilizing a previously silent segment of the population about GW. And high gas prices have resulted in many PO responses (at least half are silly, but I'll take them for the percentage that make some sense).