 | Who will save us from a 2005 peak? | The Oil Drum | The word is slowly spreading that we have have a problem |  |
On likely alternatives to conventional oil
Posted by Yankee on November 28, 2005 - 7:18pm
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: coal liquefaction, environmentalists, peak oil [list all tags]
David Roberts over at Gristmill questions whether the immediate reaction to increased awareness of the peak will be the development of renewable energy alternatives.
After receiving a letter to the editor explaining a more likely scenario (see post), Roberts sums it up for us:
Environmentalists seem to have a somewhat naive faith that once the concept of peak oil sinks in, people will move -- as though by the force of tides -- to support renewable, decentralized energy.But why should that be true? A much more natural, predictable reaction would be to push like mad for more drilling and for more coal gasification. Both more drilling and more coal-to-liquid-fuel production would fit better with our existing infrastructure and practices, however environmentally malign they may be.
Despite their prediction for the most likely path of post-peak fuel production, the authors of the letter, Kai M. A. Chan and Hadi Dowlatabadi of the Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, hold out some hope:
"Peak oil" represents not a crisis but a cross-roads. One path leads to energy production methods that are more environmentally destructive, but easier because of our existing infrastructure. The other realizes the promise of renewable alternatives and smart growth. When focused, environmental advocacy has been successful in helping society choose the right path. To do so here, we must recognize that "peak oil" brings both threats and opportunities, and will not alone define the right path. We're still living with a six-century fossil fuels legacy prompted by "peak wood" in the UK; it is time to make sure the path chosen now is more sustainable, socially and environmentally.
When the real energy crunch comes, we will of course do what is most expedient to alleviate the problem. And what looks to be most expedient is to ramp up tar sand or coal-to-oil projects ASAP. Even though this is the quick and dirty (very dirty!) solution, it will still be enormously difficult to displace even a relatively small fraction of our current oil consumption.
One sometimes hear that Nazi Germany successfully went the coal-to-oil route during WW II. Yes, they did, but their production was almost totally devoted to military use and was at a relatively small scale and at a very high price. For instance, in 1940 Germany produced something like 4.25 million metric tons of oil from coal. That works out to an daily average production rate of only 76,000 bpd. Even if production in the later years of the war increased several-fold beyong this level, the output would only be that of a single average size modern US oil refinery.
Even following the path of least resistance is not going to be any picnic.
It seems logical to harness the energy that so many N. Americans produce while exercise on stationary bikes and stepping machines. What if we were to build exercise machines equipped with generators( linear alternators perhaps ) and stored the energy burned into batteries. I know it's been done to some degree and would only produce a tiny fraction of the electricity we use, but it would be one tiny pice in the huge puzzle. The best applications for this electricity would probably be lighting(LED?) and electronics. I have envisioned wiring a whole health spa this way, but a home personal use model would be much easier to maintain than whole network.......
What if we had tiny hydro powder generators in skyscrapers that harness the energy of wast water flowing down to the sewer?
I know these are not solution to PO but they might lead to greater efficiency.............
Please pick it apart and tell me why it would not be practical.
Anyway, and to get to the point, it was a surprise to me how much effort is required to light a 15-watt incandescent bulb. The generator made about 200V p-p at about 10-20 Hz depending on how fast it was cranked. If you put a bulb across the terminals it would suddenly get much harder to crank and the voltage would drop. Granted, I could probably light a 60 watt bulb now, given the right kind of generator on a stationary bicycle. But it's a -lot- of work.
The output of all those sweaty gym dwellers probably wouldn't be enough to keep the lights on at the gym, much less put out on the grid. And waste water is also not particularly energy-dense.
Bottom line is that any devices for collecting this small amount of energy would cost quite a lot, and could be put to better use harnessing, for example, wind power.
THink about it like this... Most cars have peak output of at least 100hp, some much larger. Now imagine 100 horses, all expending max energy as they try to pull the car uphill at 30 mph. Next, imagine feeding the herd, cleaning out the stable, etc.
Back to a light bulb... One horse at full throttle can generate the energy to light around 10 100w bulbs.
I think the biggest hurtles to finding uses for micro power generation, are economics. So many consumer products are designed to be disposable. I suppose that makes them cheeper to manufacture. If products were made to last, we would consume less, but that would not be good for the economy.............
OTOH, the choice of reference is problematic. Do you pick an athlete or a couch potato?
BTW - the 6 pack of these bulbs at Home Depot is quite a deal at under $10. The color temp is pretty good too, and they start a little slow when cold, which is nice in the morning! I've got at least 24 of them now, too bad they don't have any that fit in the small-base candle sockets of that brightness.
I have been dumpster-diving for years, and some of the best spoils come out of renovation and construction site dumpsters. The amount of nails, screws, steel pipe, aluminum, and copper wire I find in the garbage is amazing, and sickening at the same time. Jobs could be created to collect these items and prevent them from ending up in the land fill. I use much of what I find for art or I give away what I collect to folks who have a use for it. There is no excuse for such wast. I know it is cheeper in the short term to haul it away instead of paying someone to re-cycle it, but when you think about the energy expended mining, refining, and manufacturing these products, it makes a lot more sense to re-use them....... Conservation of the resources we have is a vital part of reducing energy consumption.
Same goes to a lesser extent for copper, steel, plastic, paper, and glass in descending order of importance (by my estimate). A lot of energy was used to create them and recycling doesn't get much attention from the powers that be.
In part, I think it may be lobbying by the extraction industries, but mostly it's cultural.
BTW, when did Ianqui become Yankee?
20 years ago we had guys that collected ceratin kinds of scrap metal. Today they keep on collecting that scrap metal even thoough it is in beat up Pickups.
Here is the problem, many of the of things we throw away are not totally trash!!
Dumpster diving has become a survival form for culture.
Look to other cultures and see what they find!!
Governments are well aware that if change accelerates beyond a certain velocity then real chaos--civil unrest, collapsing governments--may well be the result. An interesting observation of this problem is stated in:
"International Fuel Prices 2005"
http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en_International_Fuel_Prices_2005.pdf
in which the author looks at fuel prices and fuel taxation worldwide. He notes the effects of sudden rises in fuel costs in undeveloped countries:
"Numerous examples of the past document how such irresponsible behaviour [removing fuel subsidies on or adding fuel taxes] on the part of governments can lead to riots and bloody conflicts - up to and including the government's own overthrow. In some cases, such as Indonesia and Zimbabwe in 1998, popular discontent forced the state to rescind such price hikes.
"It is of particular interest to note that such revolts as a result of opposition to fuel-price rises are
always triggered by the relative increase (often 30 % or more), while the absolute increase
(frequently only a few cents being added to "dirt cheap" fuel prices) plays practically no role at all. This applies especially in Nigeria where fuel-price increases have repeatedly led to rioting, even though fuel had already become - viewed objectively - cheaper than drinking water."
Governments, including those in the West, may not have the time or the will to move rapidly towards alternate energy sources, especially those whose infrastructure is deeply built around oil and coal.
Changing gears quickly may mean stripping all cogs and losing control.
Of course, continuing and lengthening our present dependence will only worsen the final conclusion. Political will looks only to the next election.
We need to change; the question is how and at what rate? How do we change the infrastructure--peacably?
Does anyone know if the strategic reserve is still open and how much was released post-Katrina?
Thanks
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr_histo rical.html
The size of the SPR is listed in each weekly report.
The electrical grid appears to be one such piece.
The most comprehensive and short explanation of the obvious path to be taken I've seen. If we indeed want to have a civilization around after 15-20 years of course...
Now we only have to overcome the societal inertia and the lonely SUV rider stereotype.
- How capable of dilivering it reliably is the distribution network?
- The energy generated on a national level is not completely free to move around at will.
Both of these mean an investment in infrastructure will be required if we attempt to make use of the generating capacity that exists. Also, most of it is from coal and NG, so what does the capacity look like as depletion of oil and NG put more pressure on coal?- It is the distribution network.
- True, but it's completely independent of the petroleum and natural gas distribution systems.
If necessary, we can burn oil to make up the difference. This sounds backwards, but if we substitute 55%-efficient combined-cycle plants for 15.9% efficient car drivetrains, we'd need about a third as much even after losses.Consider another issue of monetary tradeoffs. All things being equal, most people prefer organic foods, and surveys show they would be willing to pay up to 7-10% more for organics. Given that the cost of organic food is far higher than most people's price threshold, it remains a small, niche category.
I'd bet that people would be willing to pay even less of an upcharge for clean renewable energy. Food is high interest, and goes into our bodies; energy we don't even see directly, and it's sort of a grudge purchase.
There is an economics-based approach to public policy that would work: a Pigouvian tax. Simply tax non-renewable or polluting energy sources so they become more expensive than clean energy. Know any policymakers who have the nerve?
Good article on LNG: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=22&art_id=6657&sid=5676324&con_type =1
Excerpt:
In Britain, prices have tripled in a year because of lower output from the North Sea, prompting BP, Europe's biggest oil company, to import cargoes and consumers such as Terra Industries to cut output.
"The globalization of LNG is happening," said Audie Setters, vice president of international marketing and business development at Chevron Global Gas, a unit of Chevron. "Henry Hub prices have become the benchmark not only for Europe but for spot cargoes across the world today."
Natural gas has risen sixfold on the New York Mercantile Exchange since September 2001 and touched a record US$14.75 on October 5.
Consumers have to pay more because the fuel is a priority in cold, developed nations, Shum said. "Heating is a basic need in life, not a luxury."
Some statistics and projections from SEER on the developing LNG market:
2004 World LNG trade was about 17.2 Bcf/d out of global consumption of 270 Bcf/d - only 6.4%.
Projected US growth is from 1.8 Bcf/d in 2005 to 10 Bcf/d in 2010.
www.energyseer.com/Presentations.html#LNG
I've read elsewhere that China is planning on adding a similar amount of LNG import capacity by 2010. Add in the demand increases in the UK and long time customers like South Korea and Japan, and global LNG demand will easily double in the next five years. In 2000 few IOCs were very interested in developing remote stranded gas reserves for $2/MMbtu. But prices over $10/MMbtu for months in the US and $30/MMbtu in UK turns heads.
I recall that Goodstein in Out of Gas looked to replacing some of our gasoline/diesel needs with natural gas to diesel conversion. One of the results of the coming globalization of the natural gas market is that prices will be driven up on a global basis by the US and to a lesser extent the UK (to replace our declining domestic supplies) and by China (to meet surging power generation demand). So it's not at all clear that natural gas to diesel will be economically enticing until oil prices reach their post-peak heights. Further muddying prospects, most of the big untapped stranded gas reserves near coastlines also happen to be located in OPEC nations and Russia, places where politics often dominate over economics when it comes to resource development. The biggest losers are probably the third world countries close to stranded gas reserves that were hoping to use the cheap gas for economic development.
As far as fossil fuel replacement goes the coal to liquids path looks far more economically viable, which provides all the more reason to advocate efficiency and conservation in the transportation sector. I've said it before: I'd really prefer to see us follow the path of weak hybrid to strong hybrid to electric car path in order to shift our transportation sector needs to the grid, for which we have a number of options for generating the juice. The cellulosic ethanol process can be helpful in reducing our oil needs but is not likely to be scaled up to provide more than a small fraction of US transportation energy needs.
Yes, it will be an interesting question to know whether demand for liquids for transportation, or gas for heat, will prove to be the less elastic.
Co-fuelled (nat gas/oil) diesel cogens charging electric cars would rescue Britain from its current problem... if it had them.
Also, with many new things coming out, sometimes they were great on a small scale, but once one tries to bring them up to a scale to be useful to a state/province/country, one can't get enough resources, manage everything, etc.
Furthermore, here (one of the first google hits on 'michael-briggs unh') it says that growing the algae in salt water can lead to problems from salt build-up in bonds. I'm not sure if they're saying "rust/corrosion" or if they mean another step to refine the algae into bio diesel. Another point is that the ponds will be most effective in sunny warm locations. Since one doesn't want to use otherwise arable land, deserts seem a great location. Suddenly one has to worry a lot about water evaporation. They state that in the rest of the paper that calculations are based on:
And of course, asserting that the challenges will be solved, and looking for an answer guarantees that they will be solved. Or does it?... I think we are seeing action on peak oil, even if not official acknowledgement.
I have to agree with the GristMeister.
You can see right away on this site that competing solutions instantly come into play: Should we use "biofuels" or "sweaty gymnists" pumping their stairmasters or what?
Like Engineer-Poet, I have to argue that we need to switch to electrically-powered transportation because electricity will be the one common denominator for converting other forms of energy (windmills, hydroelectric, sweaty gymnists, etc.) into a universally usable format. The biggest drawback of electricity is that we have no good way of storing that energy. Oil, gasoline, etc. you see is a great way of chemically storing a dense amount of energy. Unfortunately, it is also a way of generating greenhouse gases (CO2).
I see a future with a diversity of energy sources, and if that happens we will need a common media like electricity, even if that entails some conversion losses. Otherwise we will need a large variety of end-use products which will lower volumes and reduce economies.