Could peak oil help the environment?

Dreamer · Coal Joined: Nov 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Location: Michigan

I mean in the long run, of course. I'm curious whether the decline of globalization, industrialization, and population trends would help the environment turn around. Or, will our last ditch efforts to use coal and nuclear energy, in addition to the tar sands and marine methane hydrates just finish things once and for all? I'm fairly new to POT, but trying to find some silver linings. What do you think?

NeoPeasant

Maybe, if we become a nation of subsistence vegetable and chicken growers who rarely travel anywhere. Cuba seems to have benefited ecologically, judging by the "Community Solutions: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" DVD.

Perhaps the serious effort to exploit all those other enegy sources you mentioned will quickly make obvious their doubtful viability and we will accept the inevitability of powerdown before we cause too much more damage.
_________________
The battle to preserve our lifestyle has already been lost. The battle to preserve our lives is just beginning.

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3392

ThePostman · Tar Sands Joined: Apr 03, 2006 Posts: 44

It's possible that it could actually worsen matters. It's theorized that global warming is being countered by global dimming, which is a result of pollution in the atmosphere. The pollution tightens the water droplets in the atmosphere (clouds) which acts like a mirror to the sun's rays. Remove the pollution, the clouds "loosen" and up goes the surface temperature of the earth.
Pretty interesting topic, I wrote a paper on it for my Masters last Summer. There was similar research done on contrails during 9-11 when all domestic flights were grounded. Noticeable changes in surface temperatures in just a day or two. It was the only time that type of research could be performed since commercial aviation became a viable means of transportation.
_________________
"I invoke law 7 of the laws of 8..."

pstarr

This fits my more optomistic dream for the future. As peak becomes obvious the big exporters hoard their oil anticipating prices rises thus self-fulfilling the rise. This causes world recession, demand decline, less petroleum use. Or do we fight to the death using all our dirty weapons for what is left. That would not only burn petroleum but lots of living things.
_________________
director

ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap wav

Ancien_Opus · Heavy Crude Joined: Jul 21, 2005 Posts: 148

To quote John Maynard Keynes, "We are all dead in the long run."

kokoda · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 24, 2006 Posts: 449

We will either find more environmentally friendly methods of generating power ... or die off.

Either way the envronment will eventually recover.

AWPrime

It will get a lot worse before it becomes better:

1. Coal polution
2. Eat anything frenzy as foodproduction drops
3. The climate will run amok for some time before it calms down

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1476

Desperate people are rarely kind to the environment (or each other). After Katrina all environmental (and many other) regulations were suspended. This will likely be the model for future GW and PO catasrophes.

In the long run, life may survive. But I tend to agree with Lovelock that--given the multiple feedback loops accelerating GW--the planet, already well into the sixth major extinction event, seems to be heading for something at least as bad as the Permian-Triassic "Great Dying" some 250 million years ago when all marine life and 70% of terrestrial vertibrate life vanished leaving little else but fungi. This may have been caused by increased levels of greenhouse gasses within the latest ranges put out by the Hadley folks.

In the tens to hundreds of million years it would take for life to start moving toward complexity above the level of the fungus, the sun will likely have expanded and heated up to the point that it will be difficult for any life to continue on the old home planet.

Let's not cheer are selves up too much with the Kafka quip "There is hope, but not for us." Well ok, there's probably some hope for fungi and bacteria for a while.

Cabrone

Even assuming that PO happens in the next few years - and I really don't know if it will - we need to add some perspective by looking at the filthiest of them all, coal.

The US has got around 25% of world reserves, around 179,000 million tonnes and globally there is 745,000 million tonnes waiting to be dug up (Energy Systems And Sustainability, Boyle, pp167). Burning 1 tonne of coal releases 2904kg of co2 (Boyle, pp175) therefore there is 2163.48 trillion tonnes of co2 that could be sent into the atmosphere from coal alone. Then add what remains of light crude, gas, heavy crude and non conventional oil (1 trillion bbl+ depending on who you listen to) and we have a pretty nasty amount of hydrocarbons left to screw earth up with.

Lovelock says that world production of CO2 is 27,000 million tonnes (Revenge Of Gaia , pp73). I'm not sure if this is total co2 or just human production but assuming it's just human output the remaing coal reserves are enough to keep this level up for around 80,000 years, not even taking into account all the other hydrocarbons just mentioned. There is easily enough fossil fuel left to turn this world to cinders.

I wouldn't be atall surprised that the powers that be (and let's not forget the climate denying US coal corporates control 25% of this resource) just ramp up production, convert a load to liquid fuel (Fischer Troph) and merrily burn the rest up the power stack.

I firmly believe GW is coming in a big way and unlike PO we will not be able to escape it.

Cabrone

Apologies, out by a factor of 1000 (too many 0's!). Reserves are capable of sustaining current CO2 for approx 80 years.

Still enough to turn our climate on it's head though.