[Graeme]

What to do when fossil fuels run out.

According to Wikipedia, the most optimistic assessment of proven fossil fuel reserves is:

Coal: 417 years
Oil: 43 years
Natural gas: 167 years
This calculation assumes that reserves could be produced at a constant level for that number of years and that all of the proven reserves could be recovered, neither of which is likely to occur.

And then what?

For one thing, as Dr. Eric A. Davidson, President and Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center puts it, “If we burn all known reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas, we will warm the earth by more than ten degrees Fahrenheit, creating a world unfit for civilization and the life support systems of the Earth upon which we depend. Our children and grandchildren will ask how we could have been so short-sighted and selfish.”

For another we will have accelerated the raising of sea levels by 69 feet, which will wipe out trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure and will surrender sovereign territory to inundation without putting up a fight.

Actually we will have been active participants in the most monstrous act of sabotage ever perpetrated.


A team lead by Physicist Martin Hoffert estimates that by 2050 the world will need 30 terawatts of primary energy and that at least half of it will need to come from non-fossil sources.

Were it to come from fossil fuels, then global reserves would be depleted twice as fast as current projections and ten degrees Fahrenheit warming would be on us that much sooner.

By 2050 we would be out of oil, as will be the case 5 years later in any event with current consumption. And if we start converting coal and gas to liquid fuels their rates of decline will also increase.

The IEA has forecast it will take $8 trillion in investments in the oil industry over the next 25 years to maintain oil production at current levels.

Why would any diligent manager make such an investment; in an enterprise that will do at least as much damage again to the environment and will cease to be a going concern 18 years later?


So what are the renewable energy alternatives?

They are solar, wind, hydroelectricity, geothermal power, biomass, nuclear, tidal, wave power, ocean thermal energy conversion, space based solar power and salinity gradients.


In conclusion it is hard to see how Hoffert’s 15TW of renewable energy can be attained by 2050 or how the 14TW currently being produced from fossil fuels can be replaced in the absence of a large OTEC component, which seems self-evident considering the oceans are the largest hot as well as cold reservoirs on the planet.

In fact we can obtain over 80 percent of the total 2050 need from this one source and can continue to do so as long as the sun shines and the icecaps melt on a seasonal basis to replenish the ocean's cold, deep, heat sink, which OTEC would insure would continue to be the case.

theenergycollective

[socrates1fan]

It won't happen.

The system will collapse before the last bit of coal is mined or the last drop of oil is extracted.

[Tanada]

It won't happen.

The system will collapse before the last bit of coal is mined or the last drop of oil is extracted.

System collapse would have to be total to prevent local or possibly even regional levels of extraction from continuing. There are even now small scale mining operations where a family owned business mines a few tons a day for local consumption, it would take a truly total collapse to stop all of those kind of operations. Oil is different than coal in that the technology to retrieve it is much more difficult to maintain. Anyone can find picks and shovels in the left overs of civilization to mine with.

Certainly the pace of mining after a broad scale collapse would be very much lower, but it wouldn't stop entirely. Some of the salt mines in Europe and Asia are 1000 years old for example. As long as there is a demand for heating or cooking and the coal is easier to use than wood it will be.

[John_A]

Fossil fuels running out is exactly what PO isn't about. Because. obviously, something else has to happen, doom and gloom, solar nirvana, whatever.

[ROCKMAN]

John - So true. Obviously it's not a question of running out of ff's but what happens when total oil production capability drops X% of below current consumption levels. Each can pick their own X tipping point. Today consumption is moderated by price. And as we saw in 2008 a too high price sends the world into a decline with subsequent demand destruction.

But what happens if prices don't moderate consumption as they have and there's just a max oil rate available? IOW if there's monies to buy more oil than there's oil available to sell. I would offer a WAG that X need not be much more than 15% - 20% before severe global problems kick in. IOW we drop from 86 million bopd to 70 million bopd. That's a long way from "running out" of oil but still a potentially very disrupted world.

Which goes a long way IMHO to explain all the Chinese efforts to secure as much future oil production as possible. For instance it won't make any difference how much a US refiner is willing to pay for those 400,000 bopd going to the China/KSA Red Sea refinery...they won't get it. Now expand that to the unknown millions of bbls of oil China has their hooks in today and will gain in the next few years.

[John_A]

John - So true. Obviously it's not a question of running out of ff's but what happens when total oil production capability drops X% of below current consumption levels.

I would amend that idea slightly like this:

"but what happens when total oil production capability drops X% of below minimal demand levels."

Minimal demand being important because as you've noted, POD will cause substitution, thereby lowering demand as it works its wonders through the economy. With perhaps discretionary crude fuel usage in the US economy alone estimated at 50%, that is one heck of a wasteful amount to be wrung out of the system yet.

Each can pick their own X tipping point. Today consumption is moderated by price. And as we saw in 2008 a too high price sends the world into a decline with subsequent demand destruction.

And that demand destruction is exactly why POD is such a wonderful idea. So supply drops...price spikes...and POD crushes demand, and some of that 50% of waste in at least the American economy gets squeezed that much harder. Which is why a resurgent, non-embargoed Iran is actually a BAD thing for world prices, lower prices at this point could harm the skyrocketing installation of other types of work enabling systems.Who needs EVs or their attendant infrastructure in the form of windmills and installed PV is gasoline is $1/gal?

Which goes a long way IMHO to explain all the Chinese efforts to secure as much future oil production as possible. For instance it won't make any difference how much a US refiner is willing to pay for those 400,000 bopd going to the China/KSA Red Sea refinery...they won't get it. Now expand that to the unknown millions of bbls of oil China has their hooks in today and will gain in the next few years.

Let them gain. The economy with the ability to need less oil per unit of GDP has just been handed a HUGE competitive advantage, and I'm glad that will be the US rather than China.

[John_A]

Fossil fuels running out is exactly what PO isn't about. Because. obviously, something else has to happen, doom and gloom, solar nirvana, whatever.

Your comment makes no sense.

But wait! It's supposed to be ironic and funny! Yes, indeed! Persistent flat-earth creationist trolling, with just a touch of anti-technological cynicism and packaged up with a post-modern rhetorical flourish is hysterical. Thanks for being the joke.

You are welcome. I think.

[Tanada]

"When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!"

I think that pretty much sums up the typical human response. Being a rational being doesn't matter when everyone else is in panic mode. People also have such a profound normalcy bias that they will believe the lie they want to be true rather than the reality right in front of them.

[ROCKMAN]

Of course the problem with reducing all that "wasteful" US consumption is that each X% of reduction represent another million Americans unemployed and underemployed. Along with that goes reduced tax income and higher social safety net costs. And if that big (and IMHO very theoretical) consumption drop happens perhaps oil prices decline significantly and we slow up drilling in the US which accelerate the decline in domestic production. And the Chinese can then tie up more reserves in the ground for the same amount of capex as exporters lose revenue and become desperate for any help.

The POD is inescapable.

[John_A]

"When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!"

I think that pretty much sums up the typical human response. Being a rational being doesn't matter when everyone else is in panic mode. People also have such a profound normalcy bias that they will believe the lie they want to be true rather than the reality right in front of them.

Absolutely. And people, they believe a BUNCH of lies.

[John_A]

Of course the problem with reducing all that "wasteful" US consumption is that each X% of reduction represent another million Americans unemployed and underemployed.

Maybe. Maybe building windmills makes as many jobs as those laid off from coal fired power plants? Making a car running on electricity takes as many people as one built with a gasoline engine, except one will then continue to use liquid fuel and the other will not. Airlines might get hosed, at the expense of trains travel. The oil and gas business will go BONKERS in drilling, and we know what that has done to the economies of Texas and North Dakota, and screw Hollywood if it means they can't make stupid movies. Farmers will increase their prices whether or not fuel drives up the actual cost of their product, telecommuting will become more common and specialists in IT will be needed, and maybe convenience stores will wane.

Certainly it will involve CHANGE, I just don't assume that change can only mean millions of unemployed Americans. Possible though, with the poor quality of the American worker, what are the odds that thousands of new drilling rigs can even FIND the people (with English as a first language) who can do the real work necessary? Can you even imagine the average high schooler nowadays working a single full tower Rockman? Just one? Soft, thats what we've become, and if those so disposed want to stay a permanently, partially employed underclass, well, it is a free country and those of us who work for a living will just be forced to cover the freeloaders. Just like we are today.

Oh noes! I can't make a 6 figure income as a predatory mortgage broker anymore! What am I to do!

Pay them what they are worth in whatever OTHER field of endeavor they are qualified to work in. And if that is flipping burgers, fine.

The POD is inescapable.

It is. Bee-YOU-tee-full. You should pitch the consequences of it at local high schools, try and convince those who don't want to work for a living that there is a good one to be made should they have the wherewithall to stand their watch under the traveling block.

[Plantagenet]

Maybe building windmills makes as many jobs as those laid off from coal fired power plants?

We already tried that.

Obama spent a trillion dollars in stimulus money on "green jobs". The data clearly shows that the "green" companies funded with government money like Solyndra, A123 batteries, Fisker, etc. were little more than fraudulent shams designed mainly to attract goverment money. When the goverment money ran out, these companies fired their workers and went bankrupt and disappeared, one after another, like bubbles popping on a mucky pond.


Obama's promise of "millions of high paying green jobs" turned out to be as solid as bad smelling swamp gas

[John_A]

Obama spent a trillion dollars in stimulus money on "green jobs". The data clearly shows that the "green" companies funded with government money like Solyndra, A123 batteries, Fisker, etc. were little more than fraudulent shams designed mainly to attract goverment money. When the goverment money ran out, these companies fired their workers and went bankrupt and disappeared, one after another, like bubbles popping on a mucky pond.

Interesting you should say that, the new Secretary of Energy had recent comment on just that point.

http://www.rtcc.org/new-us-energy-secre ... vestments/

[Plantagenet]

Obama caused Solyndra to fail

Peter....your understanding of economics is almost as dismal as this years crop of morel mushrooms.

Obama didn't cause Solyndra to fail---Solyndra failed because it never made products that would sell on the open market---Solyndra never had the slightest chance of succeeding because its concept of a cylindrical solar cell didn't work well and its manufacturing process was overly expensive and uncompetitive. While Solyndra was great at persuading the Obama administration to give it money and more money and waivers from the rules and delays right up to the day it went bankrupt, when it came to selling solar cells it was a sham of a company.

In this discussion of what to do when fossil fuels run out, the suggestion that more taxpayer money should be wasted on funding uncompetitive companies that promptly go bankrupt like Solyndra and Fisker and A123 is definitely not a smart plan.

Obama gave taxpayer money to the following companies over the last five years---the one with asterisks have already gone bankrupt:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

[Lore]

We're content as a country to ride the fossil fuel horse right into the ditch.

[Graeme]

Diminishing FF is old hat but what I found interesting and new was OTEC, which I've never heard of before. Don't know anything about it but I'll start a new thread in Energy Tech forum on it anyway. News and developments will be posted there.

[Tanada]

Diminishing FF is old hat but what I found interesting and new was OTEC, which I've never heard of before. Don't know anything about it but I'll start a new thread in Energy Tech forum on it anyway. News and developments will be posted there.

OTEC as a concept goes back to at least the 1960's, NOAA did some preliminary work on it as part of the deep ocean exploration programs back then. The system I read about in the past basically combined thermocouple power systems from the Space program with a circulation system to exchange water across the thermocline, the boundary layer between sunlight heated water and deep ocean cold water.