[sicophiliac]

I say we worry about climate change later VS peak oil now. If mankind can get through peak oil and still keep technological progress moving its not hard to imagine us building lots of CO2 scrubbers or maybe giant solar reflectors to regulate the earths temperature. Maybe this is just being a bit to optomistic but eh.. if were talking decades or centuries out who knows what'll happen. Back to my other point... why no talk about converting coal to oil ? Coal is plentifull and oil is in need.. whats the catch to this technology ?

[Sparaxis]

whats the catch to this technology ?

Its EROEI is less than 1 in most applications and barely positive in the best, so it provides nothing but a stopgap measure with lots of pollution side-effects.

[Sparaxis]

the nazis invented that coal gasification process during WWII. They lost the war. questions?

sicophiliac was asking about coal liquefaction, not gasification.

The first patent on gasification was issued in 1788, and production of coal gas for lighting and cooking began in 1792. Please, stick to the science and not to histrionics. It serves no purpose here.

[JohnDenver]

whats the catch to this technology ?

Its EROEI is less than 1 in most applications

All energy conversion processes have an "EROEI" less than 1 (actually the correct term is "thermal efficiency"). It's a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out of a conversion process than you put in.

In electrical power generation, for example, about 70% of the input energy is lost as electrical system energy losses.

Same thing for eating. You get much less useful energy out of your food than it actually contains. Does that mean eating is a stopgap measure??

[Sparaxis]

As a measure to replace a primary energy resource, yes, it is only a stopgap. You can't continue to convert finite energy forms to others to feed infinite growth.

Coal liquefaction will happen. And ethanol will happen. And GTL will happen. It doesn't mean it's sustainable, and none will support infinite growth. No magic here.

EROEI is not the same concept as "thermal efficiency". The scope and boundaries differ. Thermal efficiency doesn't include, for example, indirect energy inputs to a process.

Last time I checked, the sun didn't have an expiration date relevant to mankind.

[JohnDenver]

As a measure to replace a primary energy resource, yes, it is only a stopgap. You can't continue to convert finite energy forms to others to feed infinite growth.

Yes, but that's a very loose constraint. Even factoring in conversion losses, the U.S. has 3 times more oil in the form of coal than all the oil it has ever (or will ever) pump. So yes, we can't liquefy coal forever, but we can liquefy it to the tune of 20mbd for 80 years, so it has the potential of being a pretty robust, long-lasting stopgap.

[Devil]

I say we worry about climate change later VS peak oil now.

Sorry your priorities are VERY wrong. We have been creating the conditions for climate change over more than 150 years. It is only in the last 20 years that we have realised the damage already caused. If we continue to use fossil fuels like there was no future, there will be no future for much of mankind (if not all of it). And climate change is only part of the cost we are paying. Spiralling health costs, worldwide, are a direct result of our having burnt so much of the earth's crust, with vast increases in the incidence of various cancers, asthma, emphysema, cardiovascular diseases, immunodeficiencies, tuberculosis as a result. Virus diseases like ebola, SARS, avian flu etc. have always existed but are becoming increasingly dangerous because we have lost over half our natural capacity to resist such potential pandemic maladies, because our immune systems are constantly weakened by staving off attacks due to fossil-fuel based airborne chemicals and pollution, as well as ingested chemicals in food. This is exacerbated by the fact that climate change is also causing a latitude spread of such diseases.

If we take drastic action to stop as much use of fossil fuels as possible, we can only improve public health, climate change and the general quality of life. From there, PO should become academic: if we don't use them, the quantity remaining no longer matters.

[EnergySpin]

If we take drastic action to stop as much use of fossil fuels as possible, we can only improve public health, climate change and the general quality of life. From there, PO should become academic: if we don't use them, the quantity remaining no longer matters.

My favourite line of thinking ..... add the unhealthy lifestyle induced by the car culture and your reasoning about the decline of general health is (almost) complete.
Causative factors in emerging infectious diseases: humans invading natural habitats that were off limits to them (hell in the Amazone there are novel viruses with a distribution of less than 20sqkm, same in Africa), simplification of ecological webs and increase in the number of interactions (making species jumping easy), global warming which causes vectors to start migrating and unordthodox practises in farming (heck there would be no flu epidemics if people stopped raising pigs and birds together).

[Caoimhan]

Well, all those posters here who seem to be in favor of a mass die-off of human beings should be in favor of using as much fossil-fuel as possible, then. Between the air quality issues, coastal flooding, disease vectors, and wars for the last dregs of resources, we should see quite a nice die-off.

[0mar]

Well, all those posters here who seem to be in favor of a mass die-off of human beings should be in favor of using as much fossil-fuel as possible, then. Between the air quality issues, coastal flooding, disease vectors, and wars for the last dregs of resources, we should see quite a nice die-off.

try extinction

[sicophiliac]

Ok so why is the coal to liquid conversion net energy recovery so crappy ? Tar sands can beat 1.5:1 I beleive.. coal has been used for centuries to create heat and power so its obviously got something going for it. I kinda find that hard to beleive.. maybe I dont know what im talking about but I would have imagined a net energy gain of at least 5:1 or so..
Anyways as for climate change I have heard that even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today the earth would continue to warm for centuries untill it corrected itself. So unless we develope some technologies to reverse this trend all the tree hugging and wind power (which of course I have no problem with) and all that will be useless.
Also peak oil has the potential to wipe out hundreds of millions if not billions of poeple if it is as imminent as many claim it is. This is right around the corner while climate change would be a slower more long term process. Now having an instinct of self perservation I say we put the environment on the back burner and do what it takes to get through peak oil. Besides Id bet the extra pollution from things like tar sands, oil shale, gas to liquid conversions ect would be partially offset but massive conservation efforts as well as clean renewables. Furthermore most of those deseases and health problems you brought up.. assuming we have to blame global warming for them would be fatal in an impoverished post peak world with no healthcare system. With no modern infastructure and or half way decent economy healthcare as we know it is over.

[EnergySpin]

Well, all those posters here who seem to be in favor of a mass die-off of human beings should be in favor of using as much fossil-fuel as possible, then. Between the air quality issues, coastal flooding, disease vectors, and wars for the last dregs of resources, we should see quite a nice die-off.

Die-off = rapid decline in population numbers, Population contraction = slower decline in numbers. The difference is in the rate and the violence of decline. The environmental change will make PO a nuisance. So I'd rather see a decline in the use of fossil fuels ... and whatever is used put to alternative energy infrastructures to facilitate a population contraction and preservation of life on this number. The things you mention result from the superposition of GW+PO

[EnergySpin]

Anyways as for climate change I have heard that even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today the earth would continue to warm for centuries untill it corrected itself. So unless we develope some technologies to reverse this trend all the tree hugging and wind power (which of course I have no problem with) and all that will be useless.
This is right around the corner while climate change would be a slower more long term process. Now having an instinct of self perservation I say we put the environment on the back burner and do what it takes to get through peak oil.

You are wrong to make these assumptions: climate can change rapidly within less than a decade.And the actual levels of the greenhouse gases will have a make a big difference in the rate or resolution (especially if the Great Conveyor stops). Try these links ... we explored all that in the Global Warming thread.
http://www.peakoil.com/post147387.html#147387
http://www.peakoil.com/post147366.html#147366

[sicophiliac]

So is this now a global warming forum and not a peak oil forum ? I am firmiliar with the north atlantic current and the implications regarding it. However wouldnt the glaciers grow back if the current shuts off and cools the region thus the pattern would correct itself? Anyways...I am also aware of the implications of peak oil too.. which problem do we choose to tackle first? Many here claim peak oil is just a year or so away.. anybody going to say that a catastrophic climate change is right around the corner too? Do we kill two birds with one stone and go with all renewables and nuclear power? Great idea but I do beleive well need some transitional fossil fuels and what not to get us through peak. I also beleive that there are alot more maybes and unknowns with global warming and climate change vs peak oil. Peak oil is based on our rate of consumption and production of a finite resource we can more or less calculate how much we have. The earths climate however is a much much more complex issue and who knows what'll happen ? We cant always accurately predict the weather forcast for more then a few days out.. how can we predict the changes in ocean currents, climate or rainfall patterns decades out ?

[EnergySpin]

So is this now a global warming forum and not a peak oil forum ? I am firmiliar with the north atlantic current and the implications regarding it. However wouldnt the glaciers grow back if the current shuts off and cools the region thus the pattern would correct itself? Anyways...I am also aware of the implications of peak oil too.. which problem do we choose to tackle first? Many here claim peak oil is just a year or so away.. anybody going to say that a catastrophic climate change is right around the corner too? Do we kill two birds with one stone and go with all renewables and nuclear power? Great idea but I do beleive well need some transitional fossil fuels and what not to get us through peak. I also beleive that there are alot more maybes and unknowns with global warming and climate change vs peak oil. Peak oil is based on our rate of consumption and production of a finite resource we can more or less calculate how much we have. The earths climate however is a much much more complex issue and who knows what'll happen ? We cant always accurately predict the weather forcast for more then a few days out.. how can we predict the changes in ocean currents, climate or rainfall patterns decades out ?

We use macroscale models that focus on averages not on daily patterns. You trade fine detail for the ability to predict the future ... same thing happens in financial forecasting. The models might not be able to predict you the day to day temperature over a century (no computing power in the planet for that), but they give you the averages.
The key idea is that PO AND GW are interrelated. If the depletion (consumption) goes down as part of a powedown strategy ... then the rate of decline is delayed, GW is delayed and the climate returns to normal after a few decades to 150 yrs not a millenium. Read the article from the modeling group to see how the level of CO2 affects the return to normal.
Regarding the alternative fuels and switching to an alternative infrastructure ... the peaceful way to do so is the Uppsalla protocol which aims to cut utilization of the stuff at a fixed % a year in order to stretch out the supplies over decades. This will give enough time for both the climate to start stabilizing and avoid the resource PO wars. We have to tackle the issues together cause the last thing one wants is to deplete oil fast enough to cause both a GW apocalyptic scenarios (a new ice age or a methane burp) and a 15% annual depletion rate. Then game over.
I thought the issues could be dealt with separately, but I do not think so anymore. And the funny thing is that the best way out is a peaceful powerdown. Transitional fuels .... has to be non carbon based .... and it seems that the answer was with us all along (even though it has a nasty smell:-D)
Read this
As long as we expand electricity generation capacity and resort in a private trasportation powerdown ... a nitrogen based fuel (not using gas though for the hydrogen) might soften the blow

[Devil]

Anyways as for climate change I have heard that even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today the earth would continue to warm for centuries untill it corrected itself. So unless we develope some technologies to reverse this trend all the tree hugging and wind power (which of course I have no problem with) and all that will be useless.

Do you really believe everything you hear? If so, you must be a really credulous bloke.

Greenhouse gases work as a function of their respective atmospheric residence times. The quicker they are destroyed, then the most immediate their effect would be if emissions stopped. Methane has a mean residence time of ~12 years so that, if we stopped emissions from fossil NG today, the effect will start being felt within a decade. After 12 years, only 1/e of the present concentration of the fossil NG will remain. As methane is 20-60 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2, this will start being significant. Of course, there is a lot more CO2 but there is almost no hydrolytic or photolytic decomposition of CO2, so the only mechanisms of elimination are by dissolution in water and photosynthesis. The average lifetime of a given fossil fuel CO2 molecule before it is absorbed by water or plant is only 4 years but the thus-sequestered carbon is still there and can be re-emitted. The problem is that we are pumping each year 5 billion MORE tonnes of NEW carbon in CO2 into the air we breathe, from fossil fuels. That is nearly 1 tonne, a thousand kg or 2200 lb, for every human on earth from NG, oil and coal. Is it surprising that nature reacts to this massive poisoning of the earth's atmosphere (not to mention the other concomitant pollutants)?

Let me take an analogy. 200 years ago, the Rhine used to be a renowned salmon river, with many other fish species. By 1950, the whole river from Basel to the N. Sea was sterile of all fish life and most other life except a few E.coli and other noisome microbes. This was because it became not only an open sewer but also a depository for chemical and industrial waste. In about 1960, a committee comprising experts from Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands started studying and modelling the clean-up of the river and its tributaries and came to the conclusion that, with strict government control, the river could be cleaned up but it would take at least 100 years before it was possible to reach pre-industrial revolution conditions. The respective governments decided that, no matter how long it took, it had to be done and passed legislation accordingly. This started to work in about 1970. The scientists were surprised how fast the effects took place and reduced their hundred-year forecast by half. Then, in 1986, there was a catastrophe: an enormous fire took place in a major chemical warehouse in Schweizerhalle in Aargau canton, Switzerland, and the run-off from the millions of litres of water used by firefighters flowed into the Rhine, upstream from Basel. This killed off all life forms in the river for over 100 km. Back to square 1. By 1995, believe it or not, there were fish along the whole river and, in 1998 the first salmon ran, much sooner than expected. Today, in some places there are even crayfish in some of the cleaner stretches.

Because nature does have powers of recuperation, like this, I am optimistic that if we can cut fossil fuel GHG emissions by 60%, the balance sheet will be printed in black and a slow improvement can be expected. Yes, it may take a century before the effects become significant, but it's better than frying, isn't it?

With only 40% of the fuel consumption (and I'd cut NG in first priority as being a major contributor and a means of the fastest improvement), then our fuel reserves would last at least a century, which will, at least, give us some breathing space.

Yes, I know it's a pipedream but, with goodwill, it could be achieved without too much hardship (except that Mom wouldn't use a Hummer to drive the kid 150 m to school). But I say categorically, until we hit that 60% figure the balance sheet will remain obstinately printed with red ink and we shall be subjected to increasing problems because of climate change, healthcare costs and many other difficulties. We cannot afford to ignore this and let PO take care of itself in 100 years or more.

[lorenzo]

Hi, I read in the following article that Gas-to-liquids are economic when oil is above US$20.

GTL On Verge of Coming-of-Age?
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2003/09sep/gastoliquid.cfm

Does anyone know whether this is vaguely correct? And if this is true, then why are there not more GTL plants coming on line? Is it because the industry thinks that there's enough conventional oil out there? Or because it thinks that oil prices will fall steeply over the medium to long term?

[venky]

I dont know when this fall in prices will end, but $40 seems unlikely, let alone $20.

[americandream]

I dont know when this fall in prices will end, but $40 seems unlikely, let alone $20.

You on the inside track to information? Care to share.

[sch_peakoiler]

Hi, I read in the following article that Gas-to-liquids are economic when oil is above US$20.

GTL On Verge of Coming-of-Age?
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2003/09sep/gastoliquid.cfm

Does anyone know whether this is vaguely correct? And if this is true, then why are there not more GTL plants coming on line? Is it because the industry thinks that there's enough conventional oil out there? Or because it thinks that oil prices will fall steeply over the medium to long term?

one explaination could be that the situation with natural gas in unclear as well. Is there any extra natural gas out there?