I do not think that Global Warming is a priority here due to many factors. One we will naturally reduce greenhouse gasses through PO, two there is no reason to think that in short period "100 years" that we will be impacted severely by global warming however peak oil is in the nearterm. Focusing on global warming is like focusing on the man behind the curtain. Peak Oil will solve most of the Global Warming issues I think.
In terms of "doing something" about global warming, you may be right. Heck, it may already be too late to do anything about it.
But, IMO, it's still an important factor to consider. If Hansen is right and climate change goes nonlinear, and sea level rises 2' per decade...that will affect our infrastructure. Building light rail in New Orleans or Miami is folly in that case.
If drought means the southwest dries up, well, we better think twice about building nuclear power plants there that require water for cooling.
Even worse, if climate change means we can't grow food where we are currently growing it...that has a huge effect on both our attempts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and our hopes for growing biofuels.
Speaking of which, Georgia cut off water
release to Florida and Alabama.
I wonder how the nuke and coal fired plants downstream
reacted?
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Florida backed away on Friday from a temporary truce brokered by the Bush administration in a long-standing water war, aggravated by drought, among Florida, Georgia and Alabama."
"MONTGOMERY -- In a letter sent Wednesday to the governors of Alabama, Florida and Georgia, the chairman and president of the Atlanta-based Southern Company confirms that the current flow of water in the Chattahoochee River is the minimum needed for the Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama to operate, and that any reduction in flow could impact plant operations.
That’s the same argument Alabama Governor Bob Riley has been making as he tries to stop an effort by Georgia’s political leaders to take control of water releases from Lake Lanier to communities and areas downstream -- including the Farley Nuclear Plant in Houston County, Alabama."
Again. I think folks here are being lulled into
the 2050 and later scenario when Atlanta's
5 million are under the gun now and they're #5
on the list of water dearth areas.
CNN had a story about that. The oyster fishermen down in Florida were pretty ticked off. The higher salt levels (due to the drop in fresh water) were killing off cattails. The oysters were okay, but the higher salt levels meant marine predators were coming in to prey on them. They fear it will mean the end of their way of life.
It's clear that Peak Oil and Global Warming are intimately connected. For example, the models that have been used to study future climate change were based on emission scenarios dating from 1992. IPCC TAR (2000) used the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios from 1992, long before there was anything like an awareness of Peak Oil. For the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the same emissions scenarios are used, but there is a note in the Technical Summary which says:
This Working Group I assessment does not evaluate the plausibility or likelihood of any specific emission scenario.
One conclusion from all of this is that after Peak Oil becomes obvious, there will likely be great pressure from all directions to supply present (or increasing) amounts of energy by greatly increasing the use of coal. Without any attempt to sequester the CO2 produced by burning/converting the coal to meet our energy needs, the rate of emissions of CO2 may actually turn out to be GREATER than that of the IPCC scenarios. Thus, the GW problems may arrive sooner than the model projections presented in the AR4. Then too, it's already looking like the IPCC projections are too optimistic, as the decline of Arctic sea-ice is happening considerably faster than the models have suggested.
Most people, I think, would just keep partying on, assuming they don't live in a flood zone and still have enough income to pay for what they need, until there is either no liquid fuel or no food. But that may be an optimistic scenario, as it assumes no WW III nuclear meltdown of the Earth's major cities. When things get down to serious demand destruction, I'm afraid that killing lots of people may become the preferred option for TPTB. We know they've done it before...
Then too, it's already looking like the IPCC projections are too optimistic, as the decline of Arctic sea-ice is happening considerably faster than the models have suggested.
That might be true in the short run but according to Dave Rutledge at CalTech (Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change) previously posted on TOD, none of the IPCC scenarios adequately takes account of expected fossil fuels resource declines. "Our projection has lower emissions than any of the 40 IPCC scenarios" and stays below the critical 500 ppm threshhold. They attribute less than 1 degree future warming to burning the remaining fossil fuels. I think it is a pretty credible analysis.
Thanks for the link to an interesting paper. I notice that they show the IPCC emissions for carbon and that perhaps 10 of the 40 scenarios peaking at slightly above or at present carbon levels around 2050 and decline to a level at or less than present emissions (slide 3). It would be difficult for one to argue with these scenarios if a business as usual scenario were possible, but we think Peak Oil is here, so what happens were there to be a big switch to coal? Wouldn't the emissions rate go up rather sharply before 2050? Just a guess on my part, having no data.
Also, the comment you give about the impact being less that that of double CO2 does not include what happens as natural gas is included. Burning CH4 results in CO2 emissions, which the authors ignore in their blanket statement of ultimate CO2 levels. And, as warming progresses, it is expected that more emissions of methane would result from the thermal decomposition of clathrates in permafrost. While methane is a strong greenhouse, it eventually degrades to CO2, adding to the long term buildup. Furthermore, the releases of other industrial greenhouse gases isn't mentioned, thus the warming could well exceed that of the equivalent of a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level.
what happens were there to be a big switch to coal?
Rutledge looks at actual coal production trends (HL) and determines that there are only 1.6 tboe (trillion barrels of oil equivalent) of coal left (page 34 in Rutledge's presentation). That's only a little more than the 1.2 tboe of oil that is believed to be left. Therefore it is not possible to have a big switch to coal. The UN IPCC scenarios assume there are 18 tboe of coal left (a factor of 11.25 times as much).
what happens as natural gas is included?
I am pretty sure natural gas has been included. Total hydrocarbons left are only 4.7 tboe and the point of 50% consumption will be reached in 2022 (page 35), or only 15 years from now, not 2050 or 43 years from now of the lower of the IPCC scenarios. That's why Rutledge's projection is significantly lower than ANY of the IPCC models (see page 40).
I think his analysis is the most credible that I have seen. It suggests that there is almost nothing that we could conceivable sell politically that could have us reducing emissions any faster than we will have to because the resources are just not there. The only possible exception is in coal. There we could do better by the one alternate source that really displaces coal in the current power grid. That source, of course, is nuclear power.
Earlier this year the queue of coal ships waiting to load off Newcastle reached 70 - the port infrastructure simply wasn't there to handle the demand. And bulk carriers themselves are in high demand, with shipping rates going through the roof.
The lag time to build the port and shipping infrastructure to ship millions of BOE per day of coal would be years or decades. If you are going to ship by rail, the situation is even worse.
You are suggesting that we duplicate the enormous infrastructure that has been built up to ship oil, basically building something on the same scale to ship oil instead.
1 tonne of coal is roughly equivalent to 5 barrels of oil. So to replace 10 million barrels per day of oil, you need to ship 2 million tonnes of coal per day. If one ship can handle 20,000 tonnes, then you need 1000 ships for one day's requirement. If you have a 6 week turn around time on a voyage, you'll need 42,000 bulk carriers. And the port capacity to unload 1000 ships per day at each end.
Does this sound like something that could be built over a ten year period?
Bear in mind that the total seaborne coal trade is currently about 200 million tonnes per year. How long do you think it would take to ramp up to 900 million tonnes per year? ( the addition of coal equal to 10 million barrels per day of oil).
Don't forget you also have to build power plants or CTL plants to use this coal. Which will use lots of steel and concrete, for which you will need more coal...
By the way, a CTL plant that can produce 20,000 barrels of oil per day is estimate to cost $1 billion to build.
So to replace 10 million barrels of oil per day, you need 500 plants at a cost of $500 billion. Probably a trillion dollars when you factor in the cost over-runs and material shortages.
So the idea that a decline in oil supplies will lead to a rapid increase in coal use is a fantasy.
It will lead to a rapid increase in demand for coal energy. But building the infrastructure to supply that demand is another matter.
My point? You have to dig it up before you can burn it.
The Chinese will likely tap into all the "easy coal" in the next few years - after that bottlenecks will restrict growth in carbon emissions from coal, and once oil depletion really sets in emissions are likely to be flat.
Of course if some idiot burns down all the forests to plant biofuels we'll still be screwed...
If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?
Too bad you did not read my post. What I said was that a big switch to coal is not possible because the coal does not exist. Read my post and look at the presentation. The conclusions Rutledge points to are very interesting and astounding.
I'm on the fence about this. A lot of the "peak coal" claims are based on the current market, where some fairly accessible coal is undesirable because it's too dirty. The environmental rules will be the first thing tossed overboard when TSHTF.
It's true that infrastructure will be expensive in the post-carbon age - more expensive than most realize. For that reason, I don't think there will be CTL to run our cars. But there may be a lot of peasants with pickaxes burning dirty coal for heat and cooking.
One might wonder how industrialization even started when there was far less infrastructure, knowledge, and energy was far more expensive than it is today...
No, it wasn't. The low-hanging fruit is picked first.
Hence Fred Hoyle's worry that if we get it wrong, and fail to make the jump into space, no other civilization will ever achieve our level of technology again.
A lot of the "peak coal" claims are based on the current market
Perhaps but that is not what Rutledge does. He just does good old Hubbert Linerizations on actual production and concludes that there is just a little more remaining coal than there is conventional oil. That's one eleventh of what the UN IPCC scenarios assume.
NASA climatologist James Hansen:
Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate
We are motivated by the conclusion of Hansen et al. (2007a,b) that “dangerous” climatic consequences are likely at an atmospheric CO2 level of 450 ppm and possibly at even lower levels. Thus we investigate whether the atmospheric CO2 amount can be kept to 450 ppm or less via constraints on the use of coal and unconventional fossil fuel resources
We prefer to go with what worked before. We've had two world wars, and zero successful attempts at long-term conservation. Which one sounds like a better gamble for those who give orders but never have to fight?
The words "If Hansen's right" may come to haunt us. I read something he said the other day which sounded rather ominous. He mentioned that the last time the world heated up like it's, apparently, doing now, sea levels were around 25 metres higher than they are a present! Does this mean that sea levels might possibly rise by this staggering amount over a century? Clealy this would result in substantial and multiple challanges for our civilization, to put it mildly!
This is of course a very controversial area to go into. If climate change does go nonlinear we may be in for some very nasty surprises indeed. The problem with forecasting nonlinear is that nonlinear change is so incredibly difficult to calculate and model, linear change is a piece of cake in comparison, that's why we like it, it's managable. The problem for us is that so much of the physical world doesn't follow a nice linear path, but has a disturbing tendancy to tease us by suddenly going nonlinear! This is one of nature's characteristics sent to try us.
One of the big problems with climate change is that we've been influencing the climate for around two hundred years, in a small way at first, but things have really taken off in the last fifty years or so. Even if we could magically stop our carbon emmisions today, the effects we've already induced would continue for several centuries and we're not really sure what these will be, it's doubtful they will be especially positive. This long time-scale has serious implications. For example if sea levels rise slowly, but surely over two or three hundred years. In the great scheme of things, this is still, rapid.
One of my chums, who shall remain nameless, works on the periphery of the IPCC. There's something close to a war going on inside. The Whitehouse is and has been putting intense pressure on the IPCC to water-down its findings and especially press releases. As one aide said, "What's the point in frightening people unnecessarily?". They were arguing with the Whitehouse about the use of individual words in their interim report.
Words like "imminent" "irreversable" "rapid" and lots of others. There's a group inside the IPCC that thinks things are far worse than the public statements imply, that in reality we are facing a climate emergency and we have to take action now, and they've got the numbers and observations to back up their claims, but the Whitehouse simply won't buy it, or simply doesn't get it.
He [Hansen] mentioned that the last time the world heated up like it's, apparently, doing now, sea levels were around 25 metres higher than they are a present! Does this mean that sea levels might possibly rise by this staggering amount over a century?
This is what he is saying:
KERRY O'BRIEN [ABC-TV-Australia]: What are your particular fears with regard to the melting of the polar ice caps?
JAMES HANSEN: Well, the problem is that the climate system in general has a lot of inertia and that means that it takes time for the changes to begin to occur but then, once they do get under way, it becomes very difficult to stop them and that is true in spades for the ice sheets. If we once begin to disintegrate it will become very difficult, if not impossible, to stop them and we are beginning to see now on both Greenland and west Antarctica disintegration of those ice sheets. They're both losing ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year and that's still not a huge sea level rise. Sea level rise is now going up about 3.5 centimetres per decade. So that's more than double what it was 50 years ago. But it's still not disastrous; it's a problem, but it's not disastrous. But the potential is for a much larger sea level rise. If we get warming of two or three degrees Celsius, then I would expect that both West Antarctica and parts of Greenland would end up in the ocean, and the last time we had an ice sheet disintegrate, sea level went up at a rate of 5 metres in a century, or one metre every 20 years. That is a real disaster, and that's what we have to avoid.
KERRY O'BRIEN: What is the most recent evidence of what's really going on with the ice caps, the Arctic and the Antarctic?
JAMES HANSEN: There are two things that are cause of concern. First of all, if we look at the history of the Earth, we know that at the warmest interglacial periods, which were probably less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today, it was still basically the same planet. Sea level was perhaps a few metres higher. But if we go back to the time when the Earth was two or three degrees Celsius warmer, that's about three million years ago, sea level was about 25 metres higher, so that tells us we had better keep additional warming less than about one degree. And the other piece of evidence is not from the history of the Earth but from looking at the ice sheets themselves, and what we see is that the disintegration of ice sheets is a wet process and it can proceed quite rapidly. We see that the ice streams have doubled in their speed on Greenland in the last few years and even more concern is west Antarctica because it's now losing mass at about the same rate as Greenland, and west Antarctica, the ice sheet is sitting on rock that is below sea level. So it is potentially much more in danger of collapsing and so we have both the evidence on the ice sheets and from the history of the Earth and it tells us that we're pretty close to a tipping point, so we've got to be very concerned about the ice sheets.
The Oil Drum has become my primary source of global warming news and opinions, because I know people here will argue about them, and because of the all-important relationship between global warming and peak oil mitigation, both positive and negative (coal).
I think Leanan is right that a barometer is needed to detect signs of backlash versus any developing consensus that happens to be anti-growth. Especially a backlash organized from high up. The Pentagon has been recruiting pro-war bloggers, and much of the GOP's efforts to intimidate black voters relied on grass roots henchmen. I've seen waves of trolls hit certain environmental websites while sparing others, as if they were directed to certain ones. We must expect a Lincoln Group to appear to coordinate denial of global warming and peak oil.
IMO, peak oil will make global warming worse as we frantically turn to gasified coal and possibly even steam power. As Hansen as said, there is not enough oil to cause a GW tipping point, but there is enough coal.
Also, while I haven't been hanging out at TOD for all that long, it never occurred to me that TOD played down AGW in favor of PO. Maybe it's a projection of my personal take that AGW & PO are intimately related, but I was surprised by the comments today about GW.
Peak Oil will solve most of the Global Warming issues I think.
SD, depends what you believe the FF decline rates to be. ASPO's all liquids is about 2%/year (fixed amount) from 2010 to 2050. Coal's peak is a decade or so away and production in 2050 will be no less than today, so decline rate there is zero. Then you have to decide whose CO2 targets you want to believe: George Monbiot = 100% by 2030 (approx 4% per year), or UK government target = 50% by 2050 (approx 2% per year), for example.
Personally, I think GW is more of an issue than Peak Oil. Hopefully the rapidly declining availability of oil to the OECD due to Westexas' ELM will escalate the price to make renewables even more competitive.
'Coal's peak is a decade or so away ..' When the price factor of oil exceeds the inconvenience factor of coal, we will see the beginnings of the second era of coal. And, yes, carbon sequestration is a 'furfy'. So, inadvertently, I agree with you except that we have to survive PO first. There's plenty of carbon out there but just not in the most convenient form.
There are six barrels of oil equivalent in a ton of coal. Coal should be $500 a ton but the last price I saw was $36. If I need 200 gallons a year to heat my house and there are six barrels in a ton... I only need a ton a year! The famed measure of sixteen tons is equal to a decade and a half of thermal bliss. Maybe it's time to build a coal shed. Pssst, nudge nudge, wink wink, ' know of any coal for sale???'
How much coal is there out there at $500 a ton? A pound of carbon is a pound of carbon.
My Dad heats part of his house with coal, upstate NY. Small sellers who go to the mines themselves sell for 5.00 40lb bag for stove coal, about the size of a tennis ball. Bigger stores sell for 6.25 to 7.00 40lb bag for chestnut coal.
It is not sure that PO will naturally reduce GHG. What when we will massively turn to coal, for example.
Also, when we finally reduce emissions, especially of particals, we may find ourself toast, quite literally. Burning of FF now causes Global Dimming, and when this disappears GW is going to come into play in full earnest.
For now, we do not know which of the the two is the biggest problem on the short term, though I would certainly agree PO is the best candidate. Actually, I expect PO to hit home first, and when the situation gets worse and worse, for GW to enforce PO misery.
Bingo forgot about that... Look at 9/11 and the lack of air travel causing brighter days and difference in temps.. I totally forgot about this. Actually now that you mention it I remember reading a report that the dimming caused by burning oil actually saves us from true heat... Gaia theory dude wrote it that we be screwed if we stop burning...
Peak oil will not solve the global warming problem. If increased coal use becomes a substitute for lack of oil, then the global warming problem will become worse. The region where I live (French Riviera) is severely threatened by global warming through a combination of rising sea levels and lack of rainfall. To me, global warming deniers are worse than "terrorists". And here it is not computer models we depend upon. In 2003, temperatures in summer were 2°C above average and we saw forest fires, lower agricultural production and thousands of old people dying prematurally. Peak oil requires economic and life style adjustments. Global warming even more so.
unfortunately PO does not solve GW, humans wil just move on to ever dirtier (Tar Sands, Coal) ever lower EROEI (ethanol) sources. On balance I think it is likely PO will make GW worse not better.
Your view that PO will solve global warming is wishful thinking. There's more than enough coal to go around to sink several islands with the resulting melting caused by increased co2 emissions.
Increased temperatures may be a much shorter term problem than you realize. To think that we can just sit back because it's all going to happen 100 years from now is also wishful thinking.
To the extent that we see PO as one element in a larger problem,the overconsumption of energy, and to the extent that we deal accordingly with the problem in a holistic manner, then the awareness of PO is a useful thing. Otherwise, I don't see PO as a problem but simply as an unavoidable reality which can be turned into an opportunity to make a more livable and healthy planet for all species, not the human one.
Cut our oil in half please. But just tell us when it's going to happen so we can plan accordingly. In the mean time, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
And, above all, use the precautionary principle on both PO and global warming. But nooooo. Most of the populous and the politicians will continue to engage in wishful thinking and magical solutions without any thought we should skip one beat in our overconsuming lifestyles. That would be fine, but it is the planet that will pay the price.
Peak oil will complicate our efforts to phase out coal. Because all construction projects for renewable energies will need diesel. We should now set aside enough oil for all these jobs.
I think that PO will speed up climate change, when we start digging for coal like its going out of fashion and converting to liquids... I heard a Shell bigwig on BBC World mention that they are already starting this in China, and are proud of it.
Leanan's comment that PO and GW are interconnected is spot on. It would be stupid to deal with one without considering the effect on the other from a systemic point of view and it is possible to do it right and kill two proverbial birds with one stone (i.e. BIG cuts in fossil fuel use NOW), or go down the BAU route in which case we might as well make the most of the few remaining good years we have left, and go out with a bang ;-) It appears as though this is the choice our so-called "leaders" have made on our behalf.
(though I'm not sure my kids would agree with the latter choice, they unfortunately don't have much say in the matter, being 15 months and -1 month old..)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
I do not think that Global Warming is a priority here due to many factors. One we will naturally reduce greenhouse gasses through PO, two there is no reason to think that in short period "100 years" that we will be impacted severely by global warming however peak oil is in the nearterm. Focusing on global warming is like focusing on the man behind the curtain. Peak Oil will solve most of the Global Warming issues I think.
However I have been wrong before.
In terms of "doing something" about global warming, you may be right. Heck, it may already be too late to do anything about it.
But, IMO, it's still an important factor to consider. If Hansen is right and climate change goes nonlinear, and sea level rises 2' per decade...that will affect our infrastructure. Building light rail in New Orleans or Miami is folly in that case.
If drought means the southwest dries up, well, we better think twice about building nuclear power plants there that require water for cooling.
Even worse, if climate change means we can't grow food where we are currently growing it...that has a huge effect on both our attempts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and our hopes for growing biofuels.
Speaking of which, Georgia cut off water
release to Florida and Alabama.
I wonder how the nuke and coal fired plants downstream
reacted?
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Florida backed away on Friday from a temporary truce brokered by the Bush administration in a long-standing water war, aggravated by drought, among Florida, Georgia and Alabama."
"MONTGOMERY -- In a letter sent Wednesday to the governors of Alabama, Florida and Georgia, the chairman and president of the Atlanta-based Southern Company confirms that the current flow of water in the Chattahoochee River is the minimum needed for the Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama to operate, and that any reduction in flow could impact plant operations.
That’s the same argument Alabama Governor Bob Riley has been making as he tries to stop an effort by Georgia’s political leaders to take control of water releases from Lake Lanier to communities and areas downstream -- including the Farley Nuclear Plant in Houston County, Alabama."
Again. I think folks here are being lulled into
the 2050 and later scenario when Atlanta's
5 million are under the gun now and they're #5
on the list of water dearth areas.
CA's 4 cities are higher.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
CNN had a story about that. The oyster fishermen down in Florida were pretty ticked off. The higher salt levels (due to the drop in fresh water) were killing off cattails. The oysters were okay, but the higher salt levels meant marine predators were coming in to prey on them. They fear it will mean the end of their way of life.
You think maybe people are beginning to get hints that it is all interconnected? Simple concept, as articulated by a humble shepherd.
LAW 1 - Everything is Connected to Everything Else
“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” — John Muir
from Commoner's Laws of Ecology
Everything is connected to everything else.
Everything has to go somewhere or there is no such place as away.
Everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Everything has limits.
http://www.umaine.edu/umext/earthconnections/earth/chapter3.htm
Don't blame me; I voted for Barry in '80
Rat
Nope. Not a chance.
It's clear that Peak Oil and Global Warming are intimately connected. For example, the models that have been used to study future climate change were based on emission scenarios dating from 1992. IPCC TAR (2000) used the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios from 1992, long before there was anything like an awareness of Peak Oil. For the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the same emissions scenarios are used, but there is a note in the Technical Summary which says:
One conclusion from all of this is that after Peak Oil becomes obvious, there will likely be great pressure from all directions to supply present (or increasing) amounts of energy by greatly increasing the use of coal. Without any attempt to sequester the CO2 produced by burning/converting the coal to meet our energy needs, the rate of emissions of CO2 may actually turn out to be GREATER than that of the IPCC scenarios. Thus, the GW problems may arrive sooner than the model projections presented in the AR4. Then too, it's already looking like the IPCC projections are too optimistic, as the decline of Arctic sea-ice is happening considerably faster than the models have suggested.
Most people, I think, would just keep partying on, assuming they don't live in a flood zone and still have enough income to pay for what they need, until there is either no liquid fuel or no food. But that may be an optimistic scenario, as it assumes no WW III nuclear meltdown of the Earth's major cities. When things get down to serious demand destruction, I'm afraid that killing lots of people may become the preferred option for TPTB. We know they've done it before...
E. Swanson
That might be true in the short run but according to Dave Rutledge at CalTech (Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change) previously posted on TOD, none of the IPCC scenarios adequately takes account of expected fossil fuels resource declines. "Our projection has lower emissions than any of the 40 IPCC scenarios" and stays below the critical 500 ppm threshhold. They attribute less than 1 degree future warming to burning the remaining fossil fuels. I think it is a pretty credible analysis.
Thanks for the link to an interesting paper. I notice that they show the IPCC emissions for carbon and that perhaps 10 of the 40 scenarios peaking at slightly above or at present carbon levels around 2050 and decline to a level at or less than present emissions (slide 3). It would be difficult for one to argue with these scenarios if a business as usual scenario were possible, but we think Peak Oil is here, so what happens were there to be a big switch to coal? Wouldn't the emissions rate go up rather sharply before 2050? Just a guess on my part, having no data.
Also, the comment you give about the impact being less that that of double CO2 does not include what happens as natural gas is included. Burning CH4 results in CO2 emissions, which the authors ignore in their blanket statement of ultimate CO2 levels. And, as warming progresses, it is expected that more emissions of methane would result from the thermal decomposition of clathrates in permafrost. While methane is a strong greenhouse, it eventually degrades to CO2, adding to the long term buildup. Furthermore, the releases of other industrial greenhouse gases isn't mentioned, thus the warming could well exceed that of the equivalent of a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 level.
E. Swanson
Rutledge looks at actual coal production trends (HL) and determines that there are only 1.6 tboe (trillion barrels of oil equivalent) of coal left (page 34 in Rutledge's presentation). That's only a little more than the 1.2 tboe of oil that is believed to be left. Therefore it is not possible to have a big switch to coal. The UN IPCC scenarios assume there are 18 tboe of coal left (a factor of 11.25 times as much).
I am pretty sure natural gas has been included. Total hydrocarbons left are only 4.7 tboe and the point of 50% consumption will be reached in 2022 (page 35), or only 15 years from now, not 2050 or 43 years from now of the lower of the IPCC scenarios. That's why Rutledge's projection is significantly lower than ANY of the IPCC models (see page 40).
I think his analysis is the most credible that I have seen. It suggests that there is almost nothing that we could conceivable sell politically that could have us reducing emissions any faster than we will have to because the resources are just not there. The only possible exception is in coal. There we could do better by the one alternate source that really displaces coal in the current power grid. That source, of course, is nuclear power.
A "big switch to coal" may be a big ask.
Earlier this year the queue of coal ships waiting to load off Newcastle reached 70 - the port infrastructure simply wasn't there to handle the demand. And bulk carriers themselves are in high demand, with shipping rates going through the roof.
The lag time to build the port and shipping infrastructure to ship millions of BOE per day of coal would be years or decades. If you are going to ship by rail, the situation is even worse.
You are suggesting that we duplicate the enormous infrastructure that has been built up to ship oil, basically building something on the same scale to ship oil instead.
1 tonne of coal is roughly equivalent to 5 barrels of oil. So to replace 10 million barrels per day of oil, you need to ship 2 million tonnes of coal per day. If one ship can handle 20,000 tonnes, then you need 1000 ships for one day's requirement. If you have a 6 week turn around time on a voyage, you'll need 42,000 bulk carriers. And the port capacity to unload 1000 ships per day at each end.
Does this sound like something that could be built over a ten year period?
Bear in mind that the total seaborne coal trade is currently about 200 million tonnes per year. How long do you think it would take to ramp up to 900 million tonnes per year? ( the addition of coal equal to 10 million barrels per day of oil).
Don't forget you also have to build power plants or CTL plants to use this coal. Which will use lots of steel and concrete, for which you will need more coal...
By the way, a CTL plant that can produce 20,000 barrels of oil per day is estimate to cost $1 billion to build.
So to replace 10 million barrels of oil per day, you need 500 plants at a cost of $500 billion. Probably a trillion dollars when you factor in the cost over-runs and material shortages.
So the idea that a decline in oil supplies will lead to a rapid increase in coal use is a fantasy.
It will lead to a rapid increase in demand for coal energy. But building the infrastructure to supply that demand is another matter.
My point? You have to dig it up before you can burn it.
The Chinese will likely tap into all the "easy coal" in the next few years - after that bottlenecks will restrict growth in carbon emissions from coal, and once oil depletion really sets in emissions are likely to be flat.
Of course if some idiot burns down all the forests to plant biofuels we'll still be screwed...
If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?
Correct. Notice the coal mine disasters?
We've never dug deeper or used more energy to pull up less.
Peak Everything.
The UK is decommissioning nukes as fast as possible.
And we've exceeded 450 ppm already.
Man the lifeboats.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
Too bad you did not read my post. What I said was that a big switch to coal is not possible because the coal does not exist. Read my post and look at the presentation. The conclusions Rutledge points to are very interesting and astounding.
Of course I read your post. My comments were supporting your comments.
Come in from the cold and have a cup of tea, soldier.
If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?
I'm on the fence about this. A lot of the "peak coal" claims are based on the current market, where some fairly accessible coal is undesirable because it's too dirty. The environmental rules will be the first thing tossed overboard when TSHTF.
It's true that infrastructure will be expensive in the post-carbon age - more expensive than most realize. For that reason, I don't think there will be CTL to run our cars. But there may be a lot of peasants with pickaxes burning dirty coal for heat and cooking.
One might wonder how industrialization even started when there was far less infrastructure, knowledge, and energy was far more expensive than it is today...
No, it wasn't. The low-hanging fruit is picked first.
Hence Fred Hoyle's worry that if we get it wrong, and fail to make the jump into space, no other civilization will ever achieve our level of technology again.
Perhaps but that is not what Rutledge does. He just does good old Hubbert Linerizations on actual production and concludes that there is just a little more remaining coal than there is conventional oil. That's one eleventh of what the UN IPCC scenarios assume.
NASA climatologist James Hansen:
Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate
http://www.energybulletin.net/29109.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2782
I for one welcome closter bodies of water in New Mexico!
There is ocean front property in Arizona! From my front portch you can see the sea!
We prefer to go with what worked before. We've had two world wars, and zero successful attempts at long-term conservation. Which one sounds like a better gamble for those who give orders but never have to fight?
Leanan,
The words "If Hansen's right" may come to haunt us. I read something he said the other day which sounded rather ominous. He mentioned that the last time the world heated up like it's, apparently, doing now, sea levels were around 25 metres higher than they are a present! Does this mean that sea levels might possibly rise by this staggering amount over a century? Clealy this would result in substantial and multiple challanges for our civilization, to put it mildly!
This is of course a very controversial area to go into. If climate change does go nonlinear we may be in for some very nasty surprises indeed. The problem with forecasting nonlinear is that nonlinear change is so incredibly difficult to calculate and model, linear change is a piece of cake in comparison, that's why we like it, it's managable. The problem for us is that so much of the physical world doesn't follow a nice linear path, but has a disturbing tendancy to tease us by suddenly going nonlinear! This is one of nature's characteristics sent to try us.
One of the big problems with climate change is that we've been influencing the climate for around two hundred years, in a small way at first, but things have really taken off in the last fifty years or so. Even if we could magically stop our carbon emmisions today, the effects we've already induced would continue for several centuries and we're not really sure what these will be, it's doubtful they will be especially positive. This long time-scale has serious implications. For example if sea levels rise slowly, but surely over two or three hundred years. In the great scheme of things, this is still, rapid.
One of my chums, who shall remain nameless, works on the periphery of the IPCC. There's something close to a war going on inside. The Whitehouse is and has been putting intense pressure on the IPCC to water-down its findings and especially press releases. As one aide said, "What's the point in frightening people unnecessarily?". They were arguing with the Whitehouse about the use of individual words in their interim report.
Words like "imminent" "irreversable" "rapid" and lots of others. There's a group inside the IPCC that thinks things are far worse than the public statements imply, that in reality we are facing a climate emergency and we have to take action now, and they've got the numbers and observations to back up their claims, but the Whitehouse simply won't buy it, or simply doesn't get it.
This is what he is saying:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1870955.htm
I very good question and answer session can be found in Hansen's testimony submitted re coal-fired power plant in Iowa:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/IowaCoal_071105.pdf
The Oil Drum has become my primary source of global warming news and opinions, because I know people here will argue about them, and because of the all-important relationship between global warming and peak oil mitigation, both positive and negative (coal).
I think Leanan is right that a barometer is needed to detect signs of backlash versus any developing consensus that happens to be anti-growth. Especially a backlash organized from high up. The Pentagon has been recruiting pro-war bloggers, and much of the GOP's efforts to intimidate black voters relied on grass roots henchmen. I've seen waves of trolls hit certain environmental websites while sparing others, as if they were directed to certain ones. We must expect a Lincoln Group to appear to coordinate denial of global warming and peak oil.
IMO, peak oil will make global warming worse as we frantically turn to gasified coal and possibly even steam power. As Hansen as said, there is not enough oil to cause a GW tipping point, but there is enough coal.
Also, while I haven't been hanging out at TOD for all that long, it never occurred to me that TOD played down AGW in favor of PO. Maybe it's a projection of my personal take that AGW & PO are intimately related, but I was surprised by the comments today about GW.
Peak Oil will solve most of the Global Warming issues I think.
SD, depends what you believe the FF decline rates to be. ASPO's all liquids is about 2%/year (fixed amount) from 2010 to 2050. Coal's peak is a decade or so away and production in 2050 will be no less than today, so decline rate there is zero. Then you have to decide whose CO2 targets you want to believe: George Monbiot = 100% by 2030 (approx 4% per year), or UK government target = 50% by 2050 (approx 2% per year), for example.
Personally, I think GW is more of an issue than Peak Oil. Hopefully the rapidly declining availability of oil to the OECD due to Westexas' ELM will escalate the price to make renewables even more competitive.
'Coal's peak is a decade or so away ..' When the price factor of oil exceeds the inconvenience factor of coal, we will see the beginnings of the second era of coal. And, yes, carbon sequestration is a 'furfy'. So, inadvertently, I agree with you except that we have to survive PO first. There's plenty of carbon out there but just not in the most convenient form.
There are six barrels of oil equivalent in a ton of coal. Coal should be $500 a ton but the last price I saw was $36. If I need 200 gallons a year to heat my house and there are six barrels in a ton... I only need a ton a year! The famed measure of sixteen tons is equal to a decade and a half of thermal bliss. Maybe it's time to build a coal shed. Pssst, nudge nudge, wink wink, ' know of any coal for sale???'
How much coal is there out there at $500 a ton? A pound of carbon is a pound of carbon.
My Dad heats part of his house with coal, upstate NY. Small sellers who go to the mines themselves sell for 5.00 40lb bag for stove coal, about the size of a tennis ball. Bigger stores sell for 6.25 to 7.00 40lb bag for chestnut coal.
Hello SlicerDicer,
It is not sure that PO will naturally reduce GHG. What when we will massively turn to coal, for example.
Also, when we finally reduce emissions, especially of particals, we may find ourself toast, quite literally. Burning of FF now causes Global Dimming, and when this disappears GW is going to come into play in full earnest.
For now, we do not know which of the the two is the biggest problem on the short term, though I would certainly agree PO is the best candidate. Actually, I expect PO to hit home first, and when the situation gets worse and worse, for GW to enforce PO misery.
Bingo forgot about that... Look at 9/11 and the lack of air travel causing brighter days and difference in temps.. I totally forgot about this. Actually now that you mention it I remember reading a report that the dimming caused by burning oil actually saves us from true heat... Gaia theory dude wrote it that we be screwed if we stop burning...
Damned if you do Damned if you dont...
Peak oil will not solve the global warming problem. If increased coal use becomes a substitute for lack of oil, then the global warming problem will become worse. The region where I live (French Riviera) is severely threatened by global warming through a combination of rising sea levels and lack of rainfall. To me, global warming deniers are worse than "terrorists". And here it is not computer models we depend upon. In 2003, temperatures in summer were 2°C above average and we saw forest fires, lower agricultural production and thousands of old people dying prematurally. Peak oil requires economic and life style adjustments. Global warming even more so.
unfortunately PO does not solve GW, humans wil just move on to ever dirtier (Tar Sands, Coal) ever lower EROEI (ethanol) sources. On balance I think it is likely PO will make GW worse not better.
On the other hand - if PO means that we turn to coal for our energy needs, it may actually worsen GW.
Your view that PO will solve global warming is wishful thinking. There's more than enough coal to go around to sink several islands with the resulting melting caused by increased co2 emissions.
Increased temperatures may be a much shorter term problem than you realize. To think that we can just sit back because it's all going to happen 100 years from now is also wishful thinking.
To the extent that we see PO as one element in a larger problem,the overconsumption of energy, and to the extent that we deal accordingly with the problem in a holistic manner, then the awareness of PO is a useful thing. Otherwise, I don't see PO as a problem but simply as an unavoidable reality which can be turned into an opportunity to make a more livable and healthy planet for all species, not the human one.
Cut our oil in half please. But just tell us when it's going to happen so we can plan accordingly. In the mean time, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
And, above all, use the precautionary principle on both PO and global warming. But nooooo. Most of the populous and the politicians will continue to engage in wishful thinking and magical solutions without any thought we should skip one beat in our overconsuming lifestyles. That would be fine, but it is the planet that will pay the price.
That will happen by 2030 according to this study from the German based Energy Watch Group:
EWG Outlook 2007
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-20...
Peak oil will complicate our efforts to phase out coal. Because all construction projects for renewable energies will need diesel. We should now set aside enough oil for all these jobs.
I think that PO will speed up climate change, when we start digging for coal like its going out of fashion and converting to liquids... I heard a Shell bigwig on BBC World mention that they are already starting this in China, and are proud of it.
Leanan's comment that PO and GW are interconnected is spot on. It would be stupid to deal with one without considering the effect on the other from a systemic point of view and it is possible to do it right and kill two proverbial birds with one stone (i.e. BIG cuts in fossil fuel use NOW), or go down the BAU route in which case we might as well make the most of the few remaining good years we have left, and go out with a bang ;-) It appears as though this is the choice our so-called "leaders" have made on our behalf.
(though I'm not sure my kids would agree with the latter choice, they unfortunately don't have much say in the matter, being 15 months and -1 month old..)