 | DrumBeat: July 15, 2008 | The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds – One Silver BB: A synergistic set of solutions to multiple issues focused on Electrified Railroads |  |
123 comments on The post-oil energy economies of the future - by Gordon Brown
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
123 comments on The post-oil energy economies of the future - by Gordon Brown
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
Forgive me for perhaps stating the obvious, but I suspect that peak oil will not mean an end to oil consumption. Assuming that we have arrived at the peak, then we still have 50% or so of the oil left to burn. Comparing the highly favorable EORI (energy return on investments) for crude to the EORI of the alternatives, I believe that the oil will indeed be burned.
Fortunately, developing the alternatives sooner rather than later could well mean that the price-point at which the two are equal may be more affordable. Moreover, this could also extend the period of decline.
Given that burning the first 50% has caused a significant perturbation to the global ecosystem, then there may very well remain a need to mitigate the consequences of burning the last 50%.
There's not THAT much carbon left in the second half of the oil. Most of the carbon has been from coal and most of the potential carbon to come is from coal. We can burn all the conventional oil and gas and keep CO2 concentrations well below 450ppm. Coal is where we should focus.
Yeah, when you think about it the global volume of oil is actually not that big after all. If we assume 2,000 billion Bbls as the absolut global reserve and imagine it is equally spread on the serface of the Earth, then it will only be a 0.6 mm thick layer, just like a very thin layer of paint.
I'm not so persuaded of this notion that people will still go on burning/using coal. You can't just dig it up with a spade in your garden. You have to (1) go to the remote location, (2) use some heavy machine to break it up and get it out (or seriously heavy manual labour); you then have to haul it back to its place of use. All this requires time, energy, steel etc. We might not have these available in sufficient quantity and cheapness to be able to do that coal-digging. I'm more fearful of all the trees getting burned to extinction by people trying to keep warm and well-fed.
Was that 450 figure picked out of the atmosphere by a politician? Is it any less arbitrary than the 350 picked by Jim Hansen?
http://www.350.org/
James Hansen (NASA) has incorporated "oil peaking" into his policy analysis. From his recent Congressional testimony:
"Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs.
Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and
stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running
out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not
obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels."
http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Anybody who is freezing cold will pay no attention whatsoever to Jim Hansen.
There's way too much coal available at much lower cost than nuclear to be able to talk about "non-combustion of non-existing fossil fuels". Given the push for Coal to liquids in certain parts of the world CCS for all fixed CO2 sources (including natural gas and biomass) in compensation may be necessary anyway.
Every time I read a comment like this I fear that TOD is not achieving its goals.
I would expect a comment like this on other kinds of fora, but not here, and much less from a commentator that has been around for 2 years. Still, after all this time reading TOD, Pieter thinks that we just need to “wish upon a star” and Coal will come to save us.
What can I say Pieter? Keep dreaming, if you don't want to deal with reality, it will eventually deal with you.
I don't believe that he was saying that Coal will come and save us. I read Pieter's post as saying that Coal will get used anyway, so we may as well store the carbon emissions from it.
I'm not writing that coal will save us, I'm writing that coal will destroy us if we're not careful. CTL is an obvious choice for countries (not the UK) with declining or zero oil production and large coal reserves like the US, Australia and South Africa. The technology for CTL is available on industrial scale . Coal has a flow rate problem but in these countries the expansion of coal production for CTL is much easier than nuclear (which does not drive cars and aircraft). The liquids from CTL have a better power density than coal itself so a CTL plant near a mine will help solving a major bottleneck in coal expansion, efficiency loss through transport of this relatively low volume density fuel. Given the problems with current coal reserve estimates this strategy will lead to a crash or at least serious growth problems after some 30 years but that will give some breathing space for 'business as usual'. Remember the Hirsch reports' 20 years. As end of pipe (CCS) solutions to the emissions when used in cars or aircraft are not possible the effects on climate are similar to the use of oil at best and worse if the CTL plants are not CCS capable.
The CO2 produced by combustion of FF does not stay in our atmosphere. There is a massive 2 way exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and oceans on an annual basis - with a small net accumulation in the atmosphere - the cause of much concern in certain quarters.
When FF peak, likely before 2020, the rate of CO2 emissions will fall - and there will be nothing we can do to stop this. And this will also place us in an emergency situation of flat out energy decline.
Now, we need to decide in such an energy starved world if we want to use a significant part of the precious energy we have to bury CO2 - when our CO2 emissions are already falling.
Or do we invest instead in more energy efficient ways of using the remaining FF and making them last longer.
A small but vitally important net accumulation of a couple of ppm per year. Data available from http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home
You're right, Euan, to remind us that we won't stop this and that we won't waste any of the precious energy burying CO2 unless to enhance oil recovery (even if we could). And that doesn't mean Hansen is wrong to insist that we must.
Peaking of all fossil fuels before 2020 is doubtful. Peaking of oil and gas before 2020 is something we can agree on I think.
Net accumulation of CO2 is a major problem, especially when CO2 levels start damaging the feedback mechanisms you have just mentioned. Hansen's tipping points are about this problem. A massive increase in CO2 levels for a relatively short period can do this through ocean acidification and melting of permafrost along with other factors. Destroying major carbon sinks by destroying old growth forests and and their soils does not help.
There is enough coal and lignite available to damage these feedback mechanisms permanently. Hence the necessity to use CCS on coal/lignite plants (and as much as possible on other fixed emitters). When used in oil/gas production it's CCU (Carbon Capture and Use) BTW. "Certain quarters" like Greenpeace Netherlands disagree and talk about CO2 "dumping" which should be banned .