Peak Oil and the Environment - last afternoon
Posted by Heading Out on May 10, 2006 - 11:46pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: economics, oil depletion protocol, peak oil [list all tags]
He was followed by Richard Heinberg (who was one of those, I noted that used the stairs between the conference room and the break room, rather than the elevator). Apart from writing the Museletter, he has also recently completed a new book on The Oil Depletion Protocol, based on the idea originally proposed by Colin Campbell. The lecture was a form of summary of the book. Accepting that Peak Oil is here, he anticipates resource wars both between and within nations to acquire the control and wealth that this is bringing. A Protocol is necessary since the alternate supply options are limited and thus we need to control behavior as supplies decline. Thus sustainability will also be achieved through local self-sufficiency (when we may need to set 20% of the land aside for horse food again). He reminded us that there is a considerable difference between running a hobby garden, and serious farming. He foresees rationing of energy in our future, either through price or by quota, and discussed the tradable energy quotas first conceived by David Fleming in the UK. He feels there should be an inventory of oil available in different countries and that there should be a Secretariat to keep track. (Ed note: I think OPEC thinks they have one if you read their monthly reports.) And he raised the question as to what happens if Roger Bezdek's projection of a 2% drop in supply per year, is wrong. Though he hoped it were true, since this is a rate (as Stuart has noted) that businesses can adapt to. And he prefers front yard gardens, because that way the neighbors notice and ask questions.
Pat Murphy was the last speaker before the break. He comes from the Community Solution and they did the video on how Cuba survived that Megan Quinn showed during the Monday lunch (and that I missed by posting the second segment of this report). He seemed to have relatively little patience with any proposed technical solutions, stating, inter alia, that solar had so far seen a huge investment in money, time and effort; for relatively little return, and thus he anticipated the end of the American Way of Life. He considers the hydrogen car concept to be fundamentally flawed, and the use of carbon sequestration to be fundamentally evil, since it leaves a terrible heritage for our children.
Jack Santa Barbara is one of the three organizers of the Forum. He is Canadian, and began with a telling statement "there is an assumption in the US that all the tar sands oil will come to the US." (Which sentiment is, of course, totally wrong, though I suspect the statement is likely to be widely correct) Pointing out that our thoughts were a little too US-centric for comfort, he felt that the recent move by a number of agencies to look at life-cycle costs and considerations was too cumbersome. He recognized that there will be some new technologies that develop, but that in large measure we are going to have to learn to live with less energy. And in that regard what will we give up? Economic growth can be a curse, since there is often an economic price. And he got applause for noting that Governments are expected to govern. We need to ensure that our goals are the right ones, that we accept that we live in an eco-system upon which we are dependant, and that different goals will require different policies, we have made some progress in defining these goals, but lack the will to carry forward to change. His goals were:
Ecological Sustainability
High level of human well-being for all
Defining efficiency as that which generates the most well being for the least input.
Well that was all that I had time to stay for. I had really hoped to be able to hear Megan Quinn's talk on leadership, but we were too far behind the schedule I was forced to keep. And so I, like you, will have to go to Global Public Media where Nate assures us they will be posted. I will leave you to guess which presentations during the three days that I dozed off in.
I think, in closing, that we should pay tribute to the effectiveness of the conference master of ceremonies, and with more apologies for the poor quality of my photography, and also in gratitude for a very pleasant dinner spent with her parents, I leave you with a toast to the health of Megan Quinn.
IMO, NG is more readily substituted for than oil (wind and coal will likely replace NG for US electricity production for example).
Of course, the extraction of tar sands will be limited if natural gas is scarce and expensive.
And a shortage of NG in the US will result in some cold winters and summer blackouts. And the loss of more industry.
I was noticing that there are a number of coal plants that are now under construction - probably because the utilities see the writing on the wall, and want to get off of natural gas.
There was one speaker at the conference who was talking about how in Israel they are pushing for 100% solar hot water. Of all of the solar technologies, this is probably the most cost-effective. So is there any good reason why we couldn't adopt something similar and eliminate the need for those giant 30-40 gallon tanks of water that everyone has (especially in the southern half of the country)? This type of change would most likely involve local zoning and planning, and one could get this started without the need for the Federal government to do anything.
Someone made the crack that the Federal government was 'constipated', and the sad fact is that it is unclear when Washington is going to become unblocked. I am starting to think that the best things to be working on right now are ones that don't require the Federal government to get involved. Things that could be handled on the state and local level are more likely to be quickly implemented. States or municipalities could work together to come up with plans that are consistent with each other so that there isn't a mish-mash of regulations across the country.
We had a solar water heater when I was growing up in Hawaii. It worked great...as long as it was sunny. We had a backup electric water heater for cloudy days, and for days when we needed more hot water than usual. (Guests, etc.)
My parents built their dream home a few years ago...without solar panels. The tax incentives that used to exist when they installed the system of my youth were no longer available, and even in Hawaii, it's not economical without them.
The solar water heater I remember would probably not work at all in the northern U.S. They were basically copper panels with small channels through them. The sun heated the water as it passed through the channels. I imagine in the northeast, winter temps would freeze the water and destroy the panels, unless you heated them somehow.
So we're switching from NG storage to Elec tankless.
"The average American household spends 20 percent or more of its energy bill on hot water, and much of what's paid for is heat lost through the thin walls of the storage tank in the basement or utility room." ...
"Most solar heating units act as preheaters for conventional units. Although the installation costs are high, owners save from 50 to 85 percent annually on their utility bill, according to the U.S. Department of Energy."
I'm definitely a fan of solar hot water systems. A lot of fossil fuel could potentially be displaced. I tried cruching some numbers on what I assume are reasonable numbers for a pre-heating system but for some reason it doesn't seem right. I know (and the quote above also suggests the same) that they are more effective than the numbers I got.
Assuming the pre-heater raises the temperature of the water to 90F from 55F. (32.2C - 12.8C) Delta 19.4 C
1gal X (3.785Liter/1gal) X (1000g/1L) X (19.4C) X (4.185 Joule/gram X degC) = 307300 Joules (per gallon)
or 291 BTU (per gallon)
---------------------------
and these were some numbers I crunched of a storage system I saw at a house I visited(he used this system for both hot water and to heat his house):
Assume 150*F to 80*F useable range (delta 70*F or ~39*C)
5000gal X (3.785Liter/1gal)X(1000g/1L) X 39degC X (4.185Joule/gram * degC) = 3089581950 Joules
3089581950 Joule (.00094978 BTU/Joule) = 2934423 BTU
Or... ~23.66 gallons of gasoline (based on BTU's) of storage if the tank is at 150 degrees F.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/hackleman65.html
With state and federal tax incentives - check out http://www.dsireusa.org/ - payback can be in as little as 2-3 years. Even for more expensive, less efficient systems, payback in 5-7 years is a sound investment. We just installed ours here in NC. It's a batch design - more amenable to the sub-tropics like Florida, but I'm going to super insulate and we'll drain if/when we have to, but I doubt we will. Anyway, both personally and societally, this is one of those simple early things we all can and should do to offset FF use. Traditional water heaters often need replacement every 7-10 years anyway, so unless you've just replaced yours, you've got that expense coming up anyway. Do a little research, and at the very least be prepared to go solar when the current one fails. It's too late to pull it all together when you come home one night to no hot water and a mess in the basement. Oh, and I concur with the tankless heater option - which in some cases can serve as your solar back-up.
You do realize that many of us rent, and therefore have no say in what kind of water heater or other appliances we use?
Since at least a third, I think higher, of the population of the US are renters, mostly without the knowledge and awareness I have, to use compact fluorescent bulbs, a more effecient heater, etc., and almost all of which have the universal US household idol, the biggest TV possible, you can see what we're up against here.
All I can say is that I am glad to see all the younger people getting involved in Peak Everything. I have never been to any conferences, but I imagine in times past it was mostly older farts [like me]. The future belongs to the young--always has, always will-- I am happy to see them reaching for the brass ring on this crazy carousel ride.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
It is already a tourist destination from Europe (it never rains). But the main point is to provide entertainment facilities for all the foreigners working in all of the Gulf Countries, and a safe open business centre.
Whatever the truth of Peak Oil, the reserves in the Middle East will be increasingly valuable (as there are less of them, elsewhere).
So the Dubai-ian strategy makes sense, and Abu Dahbi, Qatar, Bahrein are scrambling to catch up. The latter has a Shi'ite problem, the former is just not as foreigner friendly a place.
From the UAE website:
"The UAE has one of the most developed desalination production and distribution systems in the world. The Green Revolution in the UAE today is due to the massive investment in coastal desalination plants. Sixty to seventy per cent of the total water supplies to the UAE are desalinated and the figure is rising every year.
---
In the year 2015, water consumption in the UAE is expected to reach 600 million gallons per day. The maximum domestic water demand of Abu Dhabi alone is expected to reach 250 mgd over the next 15 years."
If you drive south on the insane, traffic choked main road through Dubai the rows of gawdy highrises way to the largest deslination plant in the world - made to serve the ongoing boom.
So oil and gas are more than just a cash crop and more than just fuel for oversized engines for passing on the shoulder. They are crucial to the very liveability of the place. Without affordable desalination Dubai will dry up and people will just leave - no matter how many tax incentives are thrown out. The place is for the rich but the rich are only so if there is a local underclass to serve their needs. When water becomes more expensive than gasoline - they will leave.
On the flipside Dubai's prospects of becoming the Singapore of the Middle East look pretty daunting if LNG prices start climbing indefinetely. It is difficult to image that the otherwise proud owners (yes they actually own it) of Dubai won't sell to the highest bidder even if it means undermining the prosperity of their own city. It is possible they won't actually have much a choice - the US does after all act as somethign of a shield for places like Dubai and there's no shortage of bogeymen in that region.
Dubai is a ghosttown under construction. It may very become known as the most quickly constructed and quickly abandoned city in human history.
...oh how i get distracted.
Two specific things strike me:
1. There is no technological solution.
2. Carbon sequestration is immoral, in that it simply pushes off worse consequences on the next generation while enabling us to pretend that we can keep generating GHGs much as we are doing -- at increasing rates.
Carbon sequestration -- like most techofixes -- is an illusion that allows us to avoid the need for complete paradigm shift. Technofixes share this characteristic of maintaining our present paradigm by dumping even greater troubles (pollution, resource depletion)on the next generation.
Swift and radical culture chamge will be the best strategy. Radically reduced consumption and a return to largely local production and consumption, augmented with a permacultural plan for sustainable harvesting of food, water, and energy. Radically reduced consumption and intentional nonviolent population reduction can only be ahieved through the equivalent of a great spiritual awakening or evolutionary leap.
The chances are slim, but there we are. Perhaps the chances for our species to survive and thrive have always been slim. Our biggest mistake has been the waste of vast resources on war and indifferent consumerism. There is some chance that our species will gain wisdom from this experience. Swift and radical change is needed. The meme must spread far faster than political processes would allow for even if our political institutions were not utterly resistant to change.
Personal transformation and community building seem to me to be the most important steps we can take -- essential and foundational.
my post is good, but click through to the refernced article by the ABA:
Climate Change v. CO2 Capture
On the other hand, I have argued with Pat about the characterization of CCS as evil, simply because the practical side of me thinks that we will not succeed in convincing our fellow US citizens to make the required massive changes required to prevent global warming. The most likely path we will follow, as addicts, will be to look for any way possible to get a fix, and that could well be something involving coal (more electricity, generated by coal; attempts at a hydrogen economy, run by coal; coal to liquids). If we start looking longingly to coal deposits as the source of our fix, I would rather have ideas for carbon sequestration ready to go than not have any carbon emission mitigation plan.
On the third hand, a question about time scales for CCS to be a large-scale option, asked of a proponent of CCS speaking at the AAAS meeting in February, received the answer that it would be a couple of decades before this would be practical. The Hirsch gap strikes again.
Global climate change was the second topic of this conference, although it was somewhat under-represented IMHO.
We may not even convince the US as a whole to cut fossil fuel use by relatively small amounts to avert the nastier consequences of peak oil; to avoid dangerous climate change could require even deeper cuts in emissions. In the end, the only safe answer is to massively cut fossil fuel use.
example: should southern california start mega projects to bring in more water and prepare for drought ... or should it prepare for increased rainfall?
i think the current projections are for increased rainfall, but who the heck knows? regional weather patterns will likely evolve and stabilize long after general warming is established.
(on the base political level, it is unfortunate that "adaptation" is taken up so easily by the old global warming skeptics. it is a card they think they can play for further delay and inaction.)
One thing worth doing, IMO: prepare for rising sea levels. If it doesn't happen, no harm done, and probably some benefit anyway. In some cases, this may mean "managed retreat" from the coasts. Move infrastructure away from the sea, or raise it up. Do not allow people to rebuild in flood-prone areas; at least, do not give them taxpayers' money to do so.
I would also put serious effort into crop diversity. We now grow crops so specialized that small changes in climate can be catastrophic. We need to collect a wide variety of plants now, while we can, that may be useful in the future. Jared Diamond noted this trait among the sustainable societies he studied. They were very interested in new plants, and their possible uses, and collected them whenever possible to bring back to their home villages.
And in our own history...plants moving from the New World to the Old brought a distinct jump in population, from Ireland to China, as the new crops allowed land to be cultivated that could not be cultivated before.
as a chemist(*) i'm offended that a diverse theoretical domain is painted with the same broad brush. there is indeed the classic difference between theories and practices ... but it is pure Luddism to throw up ones hands and say the theory is bad, becuase a particular practice is suspect.
(that didn't flow well ... not enough coffee, but there you are)
* - i'll wear that hat today
We have seen over the years many things hyped as the next thing. They never are available for purchase - they are always a few years out, or need more work, or whatever. Always just out of reach, and in the meantime, we are expected to go with the same-old. In fact, encouraged to go with the same old in that the dream is that some miracle technology will come along that will allow us to continue life as it is with a minimal disruption.
To me hydrogen is a perfect example of this. It is a dream that is just out of reach, but to me it seems doubtful that anything will ever come of it. If you just look at the numbers, a simple battery-powered electric vehicle is a much more efficient use of energy than some scheme that involves using renewable energy to make hydrogen which then gets converted back to electricity in a fuel cell..
In the long run, our whole transportation infrastructure needs to change so that we don't use oil. A large part of that is making changes that don't involve us having to get around as much, at least by car. I think Murphy's point is that the time and energy would be better spent building smaller communities that are self-sufficient.
Even with all of these changes, transportation will still be needed in various forms. For some reason, Murphy dislikes plug-in hybrids - I suspect because they smell like more hype to him. To me I view those as a transitional step towards all electric vehicles, so I think they still could play a valuable role for occasional trips. Knowing your average American though, they would think that they could still drive a giant SUV that you plug in every night so that they can commute 50 miles from the exurbs - missing the overall point completely.
Absolutely agree. Not sure if it's possible, but allow me to take the opportunity to plug Daniel Quinn's writing in my effort to further culture change. "The Story of B" is key. Best, but not necessarily preceeded by the two "Ishmael" books.
Our 10,000 year old culture based on infinitely expanding consumption of everything in sight is coming to its only possible conclusion. We just happen to be the ones stuck dealing with it. Peak oil is just a symptom of our consumption culture, and will be the proximate cause of the collapse. Peak water, global warming, species extinction, soil depletion will all play roles as well - and again are all the result of our culture. We need a different way of thinking. Quinn offers one.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1990, Canada cannot segregate its energy supplies from the US. The highest bidder gets the fuel even in an energy crisis.
To change that, Canada would have to leave NAFTA. At which point, the US would sever the Auto Pact, which would cripple Canadian manufacturing industry. Also the US would impose agricultural tariffs or other trade measures.
So the net consequence is that Canadian tar sands oil will, indeed, flow south. Even if that means Ontario does not have enough oil to drive its 12 million people around, Alberta's 3 million people will ship their oil to the US.
The trade and economic flows in the North American economy now run North to South, not laterally across Canada.
The bigger problem is that oil sands will not be more than 3-4m b/d. There is not enough natural gas, water or skilled labour to feasibly build more capacity than that in the next 20 years. The resource is infinite, for all practical purposes (200bn barrels extractible) but the exploitation rate is quite finite.
4m b/d is only 20% of current US consumption and about 17% of current North American consumption (including Mexico)?