Peak Oil & Climate Change (merged)

[MonteQuest]

The idea that the human species could alter something as huge and complex as the earth's climate was once the subject of an esoteric scientific debate. We now find ourselves in a situation where most scientific studies acknowledge global warming and its eventual impact on the environment, and where all major world bodies acknowledge it and have taken aggressive steps to implement the Kyoto Accords. On November 6, 2004, Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which makes CO2 reductions mandatory among the 126 countries that have already accepted the accord. The Bush Administration (including the Pentagon) finally acknowledged that global warming is real, but flatly rejects Kyoto and mandatory curbs, arguing that such steps will cripple the economy. The energy industries continue to dispute global warming, along with a few posters on this website. Some even go so far as to say they are convinced there will be engineering "schemes" that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want. Talk about a religious faith in science.

The world's leading authority on global warming, the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a United Nations-sponsored organization made up of 2,500 scientists from around the world. These scientists project that during our children's lifetimes, global warming will raise the average temperature of the planet by 1.4 - 5.8°C. Other leading scientists say 2.7 -11°F. There is no dispute that the temperature will rise. The disagreement is over how much it will rise, and how soon. There is also no scientific debate that CO2 has not been increasing. Pre- Industrial Revolution levels of carbon dioxide were about 280 ppm ( parts per million ), and current levels are about 370 ppm.

There is great concern that once the atmosphere has warmed past some critical level, various feedback mechanisms will kick in and push the temperature beyond the point where the planet will become inhospitable for human life. Once these feedback mechanisms have kicked in, it is unlikely that we can do anything to intervene. It is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years. Thus, even with a reduction in CO2, the greenhouse effect of global warming will continue for some time to come. And considering the current signs from the environment, accelerating industrial emissions, and the long life of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, some worry that it may already be too late to prevent this scenario. The world must figure out a way to permit growth in China, India, and other developing nations while lowering consumption of coal, gasoline, and other fossil fuels. Currently, China is building a new coal-fired power station about every two weeks. This leads us to the focus of this thread. As the oil we so depend on declines, can we really turn to coal and biomass for our energy transition to renewables? Will we shovel coal into the boiler until the train runs right off the proverbial cliff?

Global Climate Change & Peak Oil

As oil and natural gas production go into decline in North America, the alternative we will ultimately turn to is coal-whether we like it or not.
--Dale Allen Pfeiffer, FTW

While ASPO geologists say there is not enough oil and gas left for the IPCC scenarios of global warming to come to pass, they do agree that burning coal could make those predictions reality. Coal produces the most CO2 per energy unit derived from its use. Thus, as we increase the use of coal in the future, especially in power plants, the CO2 levels will rise. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and produces the most carbon dioxide (CO2) of any fossil fuel, and burning coal produces 72% more CO2 than burning natural gas.

And if that isn't enough, then we have Global Dimming. Global dimming is a gradual reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface due to particulates in the atmosphere like sulfur dioxides. Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effects of global warming, and that reducing air pollution may therefore have a huge and previously unpredicted impact on temperatures and sea levels. A rise in temperature could trigger a rapid and irreversible release of the huge deposits of methane hydrates currently sequestered beneath the ocean floor, releasing methane gas, one of the most powerful of the greenhouse gases. We have been forewarned; will we ever be forearmed? We must powerdown.

[goldmund52]

Currently, China is building a new coal-fired power station about every two weeks.

I think this is your answer to what will happen to coal. When push comes to shove, it will be used. My guess is that environmentalism is an epiphenomenon of societies with surplus wealth. How many greenies have experienced a single day of genuine deprivation in their entire lives?

Is it completely impractical to capture CO2 and other emissions from coal-fired power plants?

[skateari]

If this whole "hydrogine economy" thing tries to come in the picture, which I really doubt will happen.. it would only increase our demand on electricity supply. Do you really think that would come from wind, hydro and solar energy? I doubt it. More like coal and a little more nuclear. If the US supports the future 'hydrogine economy' it just shows our willing to jump to the energy source despite where it comes from.

But will our ability to produce coal be effected by economic fallout, energy disruptions, and the decline of the main means of production of Coal (Oil)? But saying coal production will increase after Peak Oil is a hard thing to say. petroleum costs, a loss in investment capitol (due to economic hardships), war, and massive other problems facing humanity will disrupt many aspects of our society including coal production (unless, of course this was to become a government run industry seperate from public economics). Its easy to think we will burn up all the coal to replace the decline of oil, but we need to oil to get the coal..

Nobody knows how this will play out but its hard to see the coal industry grow much in face of a problem like this unless specific steps were made to save the industry Post Peak. It will decline into inexistance just like every other aspect of our oil-driven culture unless it can get its own expanding energy supply and investment.

About global warming... if coal was to increase in production Post peak, in a dramatic enough way to effect futhur global warming, then theres really not much all we can do. I personaly doubt coal will become much more then it is today. Coal is used for electricity. Will electricity demand increase in 10, 15, 20 years which would call for an increase of coal burning? Once people cannot feed there kids, whats going to keep them paying the electric bill? I dislike studying Global warming, because unlike peak oil its effects seem far off, the information seems varied, and theres just so many factors in play. Peak Oil seems like a much closer problem, and theres a lot more clear evidence to paint a picture as to what to expect. With global warming, its a chain reaction, and theres no telling what will happen. I cant really understand global warming enough to worry about it all the time, Peak Oil pretty much takes care of the worrying part of my brain anyways

[pea-jay]

I keep thinking that coal, as currently utilized will not be the fallback energy source that everyone thinks it will be, especially in places that have long extracted and utilized the substance. Why? Because we already use a crap load of oil to get at the coal seam. Look at modern coal operations in many countries. Huge equipment is required. In Appalachia they bulldoze entire mountains to get at the seam. From an energy stand point, thats a huge expenditure to move a lot of rock to get at a relatively small resource. For deep operations, great big lifts are required to bring the coal to the surface. Again, thats a lot of energy is expenditure.

Now fast forward to an energy poor future. Where will all of that energy needed to extract the coal come from? Continued reliance on oil (diesel) will force the cost of the coal upwards like the cost of the fuel the equipment requires. Plus eventually, the decision will eventually have to be made what other use will have to go without (when continuing declines) leave less fuel supplied than can be produced. Plus for oil importing nations with coal deposits, where will the funds come from to pay for the oil to get the coal.

Coal certainly can't be extracted by coal derived synthetic oil. The process usually consumes more energy than it produces and even if it is positive, it is barely so. Now taking that syncrude, converting it to diesel to put into the equipment to run...well that sounds like an energy black hole.

Now, if the coal is extracted by human power and then burnt, maybe. From what I have read, alot of Chinese mines are largely human powered (which also explains their high fatality rate, too). But that's just one country. We already mined the most easily accessed coal supplies by human power more than a hundred years ago. Heck, even the number of machine driven (but people run) deep coal operations in this country have dwindled in favor of the large surface mining pits. If we have to go back to human powered operations of the mid 1900s or late 1800s how in the world are we going to produce at the current level of production, let alone increase to meet this anticipated increase in demand for coal.

Maybe I am missing something. But I don't think conventional coal production is going to cut it, post peak.

What about non conventional? This I am not so sure about. If scientists are sucessful enough, perhaps they could figure out how to get at the coal unconventionally. I certainly hope not. From what I have read though, so far no efforts have been successful (commercially) to date. Specifically I am refering to Underground Coal Gassification, but it could be anyother mean of accessing coal without conventionally mining it.

I think the jury is still out on that one.

[jato]

Coal production would have to follow some type of peak with a curving decline right? I assume the last of the remaining coal would be more difficult, more expensive & more time consuming to mine.

How fast could USA coal production grow? What would be the maximum level before production declines? Has anyone crunched the numbers yet?

[jato]

To answer my own question:

Coal peak


Coal will peak (taken from the bottom of the link):

Hubbert model=2032 (worse case)

EIA=2060 (best case)

[ozkrenske]

Hang on a moment , The organisation that says Oil won't peak until ~2040 is saying that coal is only good until 2060 assuming no massive increases in demand. Maybe I should by them a clue or something. If the US needs to meet increased demand for petro chems from Shale oil, and coal gasification projects etc,. then that will only massively accelerate coal use. Most people are laughing at their Oil assumptions so why should anyone trust their coal assumptions. Of course there is lots of coal but as with oil it will get harder and more expensive to get. Peak energy here we come.

Maybe the site needs to become 'Peak Fossil' instead of 'Peak Oil'. I believe Peak oil will be followed by massive expenditure and expansion in 'alternatives' which will accelerate their own peaks, first Gas then Coal and according to the EIA that could be only a decade or so after the peak in Oil.

Why does anyone listen to the glowing predictions coming from these people? O that's right it's all mob optimistic delusionary propoganda.

[No-Oil]

Hang on a moment , The organisation that says Oil won't peak until ~2040 is saying that coal is only good until 2060 assuming no massive increases in demand. Maybe I should by them a clue or something.

Yeah but coal is not important at the moment, so they can afford to tell the truth. The reality will be that after the oil peaks, the coal reserves will be reevaluated & the date will be punched out to 2200 or some other silly date !

As to the coal extraction being done by huge amounts of oil, that is not an issue, remember where the industrial revolution came from !? Yes that's right, a lot of guys working in the dirt on there hands & knees with a pickaxe. It was coal that drove the oil industry, via steam power, which in turn lead to its replacement. When the oil is expensive & declining, then men will work the coal face again & there won't be a shortage of volunteers, as most high tech industries will go bust in double quick time, remember just about everything we consume today is made from injection moulded plastic which is derived from oil products, or its made from smelted metal products which currently require shed loads of electrical power to fire the furnaces.

Now given the option of no or reduced power or tareing up the rules on emissions, what do you think 6-pack Joe will vote for ? Yep you guessed it, there goes the clean air acts etc, infact all that paer could be burned in the new biomass power stations right

The simple answer to the power problem, is that it will revert to human muscle power as it used to be & the supposedly high standards that we enjoy in todays privledged societies will fall by the way side. People with no money, not jobs & no food are fast to give up societies "so called" gains to get food in their bellies. Many will die & the rest will be reduced to third world society levels, but the rich will still be rich & the world will return to a class based society, which it has always been, its just the rich allowed the masses to think that the class system ahd been abolished !

The end.

[goldmund52]

I keep thinking that coal, as currently utilized will not be the fallback energy source that everyone thinks it will be, especially in places that have long extracted and utilized the substance. Why? Because we already use a crap load of oil to get at the coal seam. Look at modern coal operations in many countries. Huge equipment is required. In Appalachia they bulldoze entire mountains to get at the seam. From an energy stand point, thats a huge expenditure to move a lot of rock to get at a relatively small resource. For deep operations, great big lifts are required to bring the coal to the surface. Again, thats a lot of energy is expenditure.

Maybe I am missing something. But I don't think conventional coal production is going to cut it, post peak.

My view is that in the short to medium term peak natural gas and peak oil will respond to economics. The price of natural gas and crude oil will get high enough that people will start replacing them where possible with electricity from coal fired plants. The current huge amount of discretionary use of energy from oil will slowly get squeezed out of the US and other economies creating a plateau lasting a number of years where oil is available but at very firm prices. (I believe we have just entered this Era of Scarce Oil).

I live in Utah where we have some giant reserves of accesible coal. In the center of the state is the Intermountain Power Project that supplies to the California market. This plant is connected by rail to the coal mines. I could be wrong, but I think there will be a period of several years where it will remain economically viable to mine coal for electricity.

In the longer term? we are in deep sh*t.

[Tuike]

I've been reading Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon lately, I'm not yet finished reading it yet, but it says that USA has been building many coal power plants in order to prepare to peak oil.

I've also read somewhere else, that China relies much on coal energy.

[MonteQuest]

Is it completely impractical to capture CO2 and other emissions from coal-fired power plants?

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere and injecting it directly into the deep ocean was first proposed 25 years ago. The sequestration of sufficient CO2 to return atmospheric levels to twice the pre-industrial level would lower the pH of the entire ocean by 0.1 in less than a decade. This drop would be significant because organisms that dwell in the deep sea are highly sensitive to modest pH changes. There are several well constrained aspects to the process of CO2 sequestration, such as the number of point sources, the mass of CO2 emitted by the point sources, and the pipelines that will have to be built to move the CO2 to the sequestration site. Look at a typical power generating plant which is our largest CO2 producer world-wide. CO2 capture and sequestration consumes additional energy, thus lowering the plant’s fuel to electricity efficiency. Thus, more fossil fuel must be consumed to produce extra electricity to compensate for the loss.


Capturing and Sequestering CO2 from a Coal-fired Power Plant - Assessing
the Net Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This analysis shows that capturing CO2 from power plant flue gas and sequestering it in underground
storage such as a gas field, oil field, or aquifer can reduce the GWP of electricity production but the
penalty is an increase in fossil energy consumption. First, capturing and compressing flue gas CO2
results in a large decrease in the power plant efficiency. Secondly, maintaining a designated plant
capacity means that additional electricity production must come from another source, most likely
fossil. Therefore, although there is a substantial decrease in the GWP, sequestering 90% of the CO2
from the power plant flue gas does not equal a 90% reduction in the GWP per kWh of electricity
produced. Additionally, while transportation of compressed CO2 has been demonstrated, important
issues involving safety and reliability remain prior to large scale deployment. Also, there is much
debate about the fate of the sequestered CO2 and its long term environmental effects. Although coalfired
power plant emissions are reduced considerably by capturing and sequestering CO2, substituting
electricity generated by fossil fuels with biomass electricity, will reduce the GWP along with
decreasing the fossil energy consumption per kWh of electricity generated.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/pr ... seq/p4.pdf

So, it would seem that, so far, sequestering CO2 is a fool’s errand, especially when you consider the rate and magnitude of infrastructure required to have any significant impact. And then you run smack into the same reason we aren’t building new oil refineries—we are not going to need them when fossil fuels go into decline.

[MonteQuest]

My view is that in the short to medium term peak natural gas and peak oil will respond to economics. The price of natural gas and crude oil will get high enough that people will start replacing them where possible with electricity from coal fired plants. The current huge amount of discretionary use of energy from oil will slowly get squeezed out of the US and other economies creating a plateau lasting a number of years where oil is available but at very firm prices. (I believe we have just entered this Era of Scarce Oil).

This is my view as well. The price of oil will cause a shift to biomass, gas, and coal before actual shortages occur. Then we will see the true impact cheap oil had on the production of other sources of energy. Pollution restraints will be lifted to facilitate competition. Environmentalists will be hung in the town square. Crikey!

[MonteQuest]

I've been reading Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon lately, I'm not yet finished reading it yet, but it says that USA has been building many coal power plants in order to prepare to peak oil.

Here's some of my homework:

America's new coal rush

After 25 years on the blacklist of America's energy sources, coal is poised to make a comeback, stoked by the demand for affordable electricity and the rising price of other fuels. At least 94 coal-fired electric power plants - with the capacity to power 62 million American homes - are now planned across 36 states. The plants, slated to start coming on line as early as next year, would add significantly to the United States' generating power, help keep electricity prices low, and boost energy security by offering an alternative to foreign oil and gas. But they would also pump more airborne mercury and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide into the air. Apparently, economic concerns are trumping environmental ones in utilities' plans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0226/p01s04-sten.html

New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'

By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons. China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

And to be fair, a different spin on things:

NATURAL GAS PRICES RESULT IN MORE COAL PLANTS - AMID COMPLAINTS FROM ENVIROS WORRIED ABOUT AIR QUALITY
[quote]“Passing the energy bill means the development of advanced coal technologies that will sharply reduce the emission from future coal-fired electricity plants in the future. That means we can use our abundant supplies of coal while ensuring clean air and clean water for our children. According to the EIA, the advanced coal technology and other environmental provisions in the bill will keep 96 million metric tons of future emissions out of our air. That’s the equivalent of pulling nearly 1 million SUVs off the road.â€

[Ludi]

I think it's interesting that so often it's promoted that only "environmentalists" are concerned with global warming.

[MonteQuest]

I think it's interesting that so often it's promoted that only "environmentalists" are concerned with global warming.

I think it comes from the fact that "enviromentalist" is most often viewed in a negative light as someone who is whacko and unreasonable when it comes to progress vs the environment. Biologists and ecologists have a different view of the world. A view ingrained by empirical observation of living systems over time. As a National Park Ranger for many years, I can say with conviction that most people are so removed from the natural world, as to really not have a valid basis for an opinion with regard to it. Think about it. Do most people really know what must be preserved and how to do it?

[small_steps]

I've been reading Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon lately, I'm not yet finished reading it yet, but it says that USA has been building many coal power plants in order to prepare to peak oil.

I've also read somewhere else, that China relies much on coal energy.

Might be that the USA is building those coal plants to mitigate the effects of the peaking of NG on this side of the puddle.
If the US/Canada get a normal summer or winter things will get dicey. If there is a hot summer or a cold winter - things would get wild - Building bigger homes and a declining resource to heat and cool them is not a good combination. It doesn't really matter if you put a 94% eff furnace in the thing , something about the laws of dimishing returns...

[No-Oil]

CO2 capture and sequestration consumes additional energy, thus lowering the plant’s fuel to electricity efficiency. Thus, more fossil fuel must be consumed to produce extra electricity to compensate for the loss.

Correct & its the same for cars. The current generation of cars produce more CO2 & less of the more toxic gas wastes, but waste vital Platinum & an extra 10-15% more fuel forcing its exhaust through the CAT. Get rid of the CAT's & we can save 10-15% of the fuel instantly !

Yeah I know that no one wants to have dirty air, but if the air is dirty & breathing is difficult, because of cars, then there would be more incentive to STOP using them !

Just a thought

Chris W.

[stu]

Monte

Any more information on these feedback mechanisms and possible implications of their actions.

I know that in Siberia there is a lot of frozen peatland which, if melted, would release more co2 into the atmosphere.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... _bogs.html

"However, if temperatures in western Siberia continue to rise, its peatlands could thaw and dry out. They would then essentially become giant compost heaps and begin to release vast amounts of carbon dioxide. This could potentially cause a slight acceleration of global warming, Smith said."

[MonteQuest]

Monte

Any more information on these feedback mechanisms and possible implications of their actions.

I know that in Siberia there is a lot of frozen peatland which, if melted, would release more co2 into the atmosphere.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... _bogs.html

"However, if temperatures in western Siberia continue to rise, its peatlands could thaw and dry out. They would then essentially become giant compost heaps and begin to release vast amounts of carbon dioxide. This could potentially cause a slight acceleration of global warming, Smith said."

Stu,

Yes, but as you must know, these are uncharted waters. But for a basis of thought, realize this, for those of you who don't know: Contrary to popular belief, the forests and green plants are not our primary source of oxygen, nor the main absorbers of CO2, it is the small microscopic organisms in the ocean known as phytoplankton. They produce 70% of the earth’s O2.

This chain of events is what could happen, not necessarily predictions:

• As the oceans warm, they are less able to absorb CO2.
• Warming oceans are more thermally stable. This stability reduces the circulation of nutrients and decreases the biomass of the phytoplankton, thus further damaging the ability to absorb CO2.
• Ultraviolet radiation from the damaged ozone layer, particularly severe in polar regions, further damages the phytoplankton. The net ecosystem balance between respiration (CO2 emitted) and photosynthesis (CO2 used) now tilts toward respiration, and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
• As the temperature rises, Arctic tundra melts and releases huge amounts of methane. Under certain conditions, wet, flooded soils can release 100 times more methane than dry soils.
• At this point, drought in many areas from warming and associated climatic changes further retards photosynthesis.
• Changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere deplete the cleansing hydroxyl reservoir that oxidizes methane and other greenhouse gases.
• Ozone in the troposphere, a greenhouse gas at lower levels of the atmosphere, is increased as a result of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide from growing automobile exhaust.
• The Arctic ice cover begins to thin and retreat. This thinning reduces the albedo (the net reflectivity of the planet), thus leading to further warming.
• Finally, huge amounts of methane trapped in the Arctic continental shelf in the form of methane hydrates are released from under the permafrost and in shallow Arctic waters.

Global Warming Links:
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html

[Ludi]

The Arctic ice cover begins to thin and retreat.

People need to be aware that this is happening now - this is not a future event.

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/