Global warming and bad weather

[clv101]

Your intellectually honest outlook seems to be supremely pessimistic about reform. I *think* you agree that emissions from oil and gas have to be curbed from present day consumption levels, but is the best way to go about that really just to let depletion take care of it? I would have thought the hybrid peak-oil-climate-change enlightened activist should ideally want people to choose behavioural change rather than have peak-oil and associated economic plight force it upon them.

Again this hinges on your position and degree of optimisim with regard reform vs revolution. Oil and gas depletion will be the revolution in that it will defy consent about curtailing use voluntarily. Is it too much to hope that reformation could allow us to consent to using less?

My pessimism about reform stems from the fact that I have no faith at all in choice/reform ?beating? the depletion curve down. The climate doesn?t really care how we get there just what the emissions are. I believe the oil/gas emissions will be solely determined by the depletion curve.

Absolutely it would be better if people chose to reduce consumption/emissions rather than be forced by shortage, the more action by reform/choice the better. But I see that as a peak oil issue, trying to maximise energy services as resources deplete, not a climate change issue.

Climate change activists are about total CO2 emissions (and sinks) ? I just don?t see how activism targeted at oil/gas can impact the CO2 emissions.

Peak oil activists are about minimising the hardship created by reduced oil/gas availability.

Is it definitive that the sources you do go by on global oil and gas reserves will not cause CO2 equivalents to go above the recommended 550 parts per million? What if the more pessimistic 440 parts per million is the tipping point? Forgive my ignorance.

This is what Jim Hansen told me ? I believe this guy seriously knows what he is talking about. This is the graph showing the cumulative atmospheric concentrations of CO2 attributed to difference sources.



Whilst he doesn?t think we?re going to peak next week he does expect peak within 20 years in which case we can will with the oil/gas CO2 contribution.

The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal ? this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I?m doubtful.

Again, forgive my ignorance - why would peak oil/gas affect our ability to exploit coal as we weren't using significant amounts of either when we first started mining and exploiting coal?

This isn?t really to do with the magnitude of oil/gas physically used for coal mining ? that?s tiny. It?s more to do with demand. I think peak oil/gas will destroy demand. Think about the Chinese example of building a new coal power station every 5 days ? the only reason they are doing that is to run the factories manufacturing stuff for the West and to fuel the increasing Chinese ?quality of life?. Both these sources of demand are directly funded by Western economic growth. If you subscribe to peak oil/gas resulting in economic depression then energy demand (including electricity and coal) will fall. Coal use is a function of global GDP, if peak oil/gas causes global GDP to fall then coal demand will fall too.

I don?t think it?s possible to maintain growth by replacing depleting oil/gas with coal to liquids and electrification. That?s the only scenario that would see increased coal burn in the face of peak oil.

[MisterE]

I asked one person on this and he said its defo global warming just look atall the crap going into our eco system only a clown would think that is ok to do - perhaps he's right, he's not got a lot of credentials mind you as it my 8 yr old son!

Funny how kids see the simple truth no wonder Einstein tried to think like a child

[kenneal - lagger]

Because digging stuff out of the ground (in large quantities) is heavily reliant upon machines that run on oil.
Thats also why i dont see nuclear making a comeback post peak.

The excavators that dig the coal out of the ground run on electricity and the trucks that transport it for processing are diesel but could be replaced by electrically driven conveyor belts. We could end up with the situation where nuclear provides the power to excavate coal and get the oil out of tar sands, all carbon free of course, until the uranium runs out in about 50 years.

As with the US ethanol situation, we seem to be expending energy to provide energy for the sole purpose of GROWTH, i.e. for some twat in a mansion to accumilate a few more billion $$$. When will an enlightened economist somewhere (if the is one, it's highly unlikely that there will be more than one) realise that the whole system has gone stark raving BONKERS!!!

We need to preserve as much of the oil we have as possible as a feedstock for the chemical industry, not waste it on carting people around the country on business that could be conducted over the phone or internet or by travelling on the train or bus. Also we have to stop making rubbish to adorn our houses for a few weeks before it is consigned to a landfill site to be converted back to hydrocarbons in a few years and then flared off as the ultimate waste.

We need to ban mass production, because that is the driver for the wasteful growth our economists and politicians are addicted to. If things are mass produced they need to be thrown away quickly to ensure that the production line can keep going. Either that or we need a never ending supply of people to keep the demand going. And as we are now seeing, growth of economies or people isn't sustainable, because growth is like a runaway train that is about to hit the buffers.

[clv101]

When will an enlightened economist somewhere (if the is one, it's highly unlikely that there will be more than one) realise that the whole system has gone stark raving BONKERS!!!

Here he is:



The Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many and Endangered the Planet

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks civ101, Chris. It is Chris isn't it?

Now, shall I contribute to economic growth by buying his book to confirm to myself what I already know?

I heard recently that money is an illusion. The growth of money actually requires increasing levels of debt. When a person takes out a loan, the bank loaning the money can then create an equal amount of money. When you pay the money back it cancels out the new money created. So, far from being worried about the increase of personnal debt, the banks require it to keep growing. If we all paid our debt back the banks would go bust and the nations net worth would collapse. I think!!

I don't think that being in debt when the SHTF will be a problem. So many people will go bust at the same time that the banking and mortgage system will collapse. There won't be enough debt collectors to go round. Even if there were, who would be able to afford to buy the repossessed houses and where would the dispossessed live.

A few rich people may buy up the country and rent the houses out. So you would probably end up living in the same house paying a rent instead of a mortgage. Who would be able to pay any rent? Most of the jobs would go, so there would be no one to pay taxes. So government would break down as they wouldn't be able to pay civil servants or the military. So there would be bands of armed men roaming the country trying to make a living!!! now the problems start!

[omega3]

We need to preserve as much of the oil we have as possible as a feedstock for the chemical industry, not waste it on carting people around the country on business that could be conducted over the phone or internet or by travelling on the train or bus. Also we have to stop making rubbish to adorn our houses for a few weeks before it is consigned to a landfill site to be converted back to hydrocarbons in a few years and then flared off as the ultimate waste.

Well said Ken. A trip to our local refuse tip never ceases to amaze. Far too much unnecessary waste.

[clv101]

I've expanded a little on the points I made above on The Oil Drum here:

Peak Oil and Climate Change

[Adam1]

I've expanded a little on the points I made above on The Oil Drum here:

Peak Oil and Climate Change

Hey, Chris, you've certainly provoked a lot of comments on the Oil Drum. Since learning about peak oil, I always felt that PO gives both added momentum/justification to act on CC and, importantly, added nuance to the CC arguments: particularly your point about the need to focus on cutting down coal burning. I do feel pessimistic about this, as I feel that the powers that be are so hooked on keeping the show going now that they will not be able to resist burning any coal with a +ve EROEI. As you've identified in the past, we saw this last winter when the UK increased its coal burn to get over the gas shortage.

That said, as Heinberg pointed out in his recent museletter, there is a large overlap between the CC and PO to-do lists. Acting intelligently and carefully (to use his words again) does also mean acting based on all the facts, i.e. looking at the whole PO/CC picture.

[MacG]

I do feel pessimistic about this, as I feel that the powers that be are so hooked on keeping the show going now that they will not be able to resist burning any coal with a +ve EROEI.

I'm not that worried over coal, or alternatively I dont see how coal could save the show.

Burning coal require quite some infrastructure for mining it, getting it somewhere and finally burning it. Today's infrastructure is dimensioned for todays needs, and can't be increased without significant investments. Above all, it cost ENERGY to build infrastructure. If oil is in decline, the energy needed for building the new infrastructure will compete with existing needs for energy. This is the essence of the original Hirsh-report.

There are claims that "there is a lot of coal", but I wonder how much of that is "easy coal"? They do "mountaintop removal" in the Appalachians and chineese coalminers die in droves, and still China buy coal from Australia. The easy stuff is probably gone since long.

The British Navy had converted from coal to oil already in 1913, something they hardly would have done that if coal is such a convenient fuel.

[clv101]

The British Navy had converted from coal to oil already in 1913, something they hardly would have done that if coal is such a convenient fuel.

Well... the first ship was under construction. I hear your point though. Report from 1913:



More here: Beginnings of UK ?Oil Age?

[Adam1]

I do feel pessimistic about this, as I feel that the powers that be are so hooked on keeping the show going now that they will not be able to resist burning any coal with a +ve EROEI.

I'm not that worried over coal, or alternatively I dont see how coal could save the show.

Burning coal require quite some infrastructure for mining it, getting it somewhere and finally burning it. Today's infrastructure is dimensioned for todays needs, and can't be increased without significant investments. Above all, it cost ENERGY to build infrastructure. If oil is in decline, the energy needed for building the new infrastructure will compete with existing needs for energy. This is the essence of the original Hirsh-report.

There are claims that "there is a lot of coal", but I wonder how much of that is "easy coal"? They do "mountaintop removal" in the Appalachians and chineese coalminers die in droves, and still China buy coal from Australia. The easy stuff is probably gone since long.

The British Navy had converted from coal to oil already in 1913, something they hardly would have done that if coal is such a convenient fuel.

MacG, you could well be right. The eMergy/net energy of continuing and expanded coal production probably needs more quantitative analysis.

[Vortex]

If oil is in decline, the energy needed for building the new infrastructure will compete with existing needs for energy. This is the essence of the original Hirsh-report.

Good observation.

You get a double-whammy as the supply becomes difficult.

This could lead to a VERY rapid "phase transition" from a warm, comfy SUV world to whatever comes next.

There will still be plenty of oil ... but not enough for current demand, global growth and for building the infastructure for a post-PO world.

I refer to my favourite analogy: Christmas Eve at the toy shop selling the latest must-have gadget or doll.

101 toys and 100 customers => peace & a price of ?10 per toy.
99 toys and 100 customers => rioting & a price of ?50 per toy.

A tiny change in supply will lead to major grief.

None of the Daddys at the store will have the ability, equipment, imagination or time to build an alternative toy acceptable to young Charlotte.

The same will happen with oil ... the bullies & those with money will get the stuff. Alternatives will be postponed.

In other words, I bet the rich countries and rich people will simply squander much of what remains, making Plan B a real pig to implement.

On a selfish personal level I/you need to ensure that we stay on the "nice" side of the shortage "wave" ... or opt out of the game in some way.

Since I can't ensure I can join the "rich crowd" I'll go for opting out to a small well-insulated house with vegtable garden in the countryside.

[SherryMayo]

I worry that peak oil/gas could cause an energy security panic resulting in a dash to coal (and hang the CO2 consequences). Even if a peak oil recession reduces energy demand, coal produces much more CO2 per end unit energy so emssions may not reduce, and in any case their effect is cumulative.

Many power stations here in Australia are right next to open cut coal mines - the massive coal mining gear - including conveyors - is run on electricity - no liquid fuel required. Long distance DC transmission of power will make the power station/mine combo even more attractive. You can go a long way to keeping your cities running (and saving oil for other purposes) with electrified mass transit, but what we peakers might see as part of the solution could become part of the problem if all the electric power comes from coal.

Link to Aussie open-cut mine/power station (trust me, it is a BIG hole in the ground):
http://www.loyyangpower.com.au/

It is also relatively easy to coalify the export chain (electrified rail to coal powered boat to rail). I just googled and found that some specialised coal carrying ships are already powered this way.

We may be underestimating the extent to which the coal itself can either directly provide the energy for building energy infrastructure or else free up oil reserves for this purpose. This would be a disaster.

[MacG]

It is also relatively easy to coalify the export chain (electrified rail to coal powered boat to rail). I just googled and found that some specialised coal carrying ships are already powered this way.

We may be underestimating the extent to which the coal itself can either directly provide the energy for building energy infrastructure or else free up oil reserves for this purpose. This would be a disaster.

Australia is a bit special. You got "easy coal". Mountaintop removal as done in the US or pit mining as done in China indicate that there is a lack of "easy coal". Here is a piece on coal with some perspective:

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~ ... 1coal.html

[biffvernon]

But we keep hearing that China is buiding a new coal power station every 30 nanoseconds.

(I might have got the statistic a bit wrong)