Guest post by David Archibald
The fate of all carbon is Davy Jones’ locker. Following the post on the imminent decline in world oil production and the effect that would have on agricultural operating costs at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/27/peak-oil-now-for-the-downslope/,
let’s have a look at what total peak fossil fuel production looks like and the effect that will have on climate. It will look something like this:
Figure 1: World Fossil Fuel Production 1800 – 2300
The figure is in millions of barrels of oil and its equivalent in energy content per annum. Peak production is in 2025. Coal production keeps rising until about 2050 but that is more than offset by the declines in oil and natural gas. China has the largest coal reserves on the planet of about one trillion tonnes. The United States is next with about 250 billion tonnes.
Figure 2: Fossil Fuel Production scaled against rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide
There is high quality data on atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1959 from the Mauna Loa observatory. Plotted against the historic fossil fuel production profile, there is a good match fuel burned and what remained in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a half life in the atmosphere of about five years. It is very rapidly exchanged with the biosphere and the top 100 metres of the ocean. There is almost no exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean below 100 metres. The oceans have fifty times as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere and eventually the atmosphere will be in equilibrium with the whole ocean column instead of the top 100 metres. Note the dip in the rate of increase in 1992 associated with the cooling caused by Mt Pinatubo. Similarly, the current solar-driven cooling will be associated with a flatlining of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level as the cooling oceans will absorb more carbon dioxide.
Figure 3: Projected atmospheric carbon dioxide level 1800 – 3300
The oceans turn over every eight hundred years. So at one end of the oceanic conveyor, water in equilibrium with the current atmospheric carbon dioxide level is sinking towards Antarctica and at the other end, water in equilibrium with the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide of about 300 ppm is coming to the surface and immediately taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to become in equilibrium with the current carbon dioxide level. The sum of these two effects is to take 0.25% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolve it in the oceans. If it weren’t for this effect, burning all the rocks we could economically burn would take the atmospheric carbon dioxide level to about 600 ppm. With it, the peak is going to be about 522 ppm in 2130.
From the current level of 390 ppm and with the heating effect of carbon dioxide being 0.1°C per 100 ppm, the consequential increase in atmospheric temperature will can look forward to may be another 0.15°C. This will simply be lost in the noise of the climate system. There is a far greater benefit. The extra 130 ppm-odd from the current level will increase agricultural productivity by 23%. So instead of the world producing 2.2 billion tonnes of grain, the same land area and water will be able to produce a further 500 million tonnes of grain. That increase would be able to sustain about 1,200 million people. Perhaps that is not a sustainable thing because the oceanic turnover will subsequently bury that aerial fertiliser in the deep oceans.
This figure also shows why higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have such a dramatic effect on plant growth. Plants can’t operate against the partial pressure differential between their cells and the atmosphere when the atmospheric content is below 150 ppm of carbon dioxide. During the depths of the glacials during the current ice age, which is three million years long so far, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level got as low at 172 ppm. Life above sea level came within a hair’s breadth of extinction due to lack of carbon dioxide. At the pre-industrial level of about 300 ppm, only 150 ppm was available to plants. At the expected atmospheric concentration of 522 ppm in 2130, that will be a 150% increase in useable carbon dioxide.
Figure 4: Energy Density per Litre
The next question is,”When carbon becomes rare and expensive, what will we be driving?” The future doesn’t look too bleak in that regard. As a fuel, ammonia has about half the energy density of LPG and handles like LPG in terms of the pressures and temperatures of storage. Ammonia is better than having no liquid fuel at all and can be made from nitrogen and hydrogen produced by electrolysis. The cost of electric power determines the production cost. There are credible attempts being made to produce ammonia from wind power. Electrolysis could handle the swings in power output from wind which electric grids are ill-suited to.
Figure 5: Competitive Price Ranges of Nitrogenous Fertiliser Feedstocks
It is said that half the World’s protein consumption comes from synthetically produced ammonia. Until recently, the most competitive feedstock has been natural gas. But with the natural gas price internationally linked to the oil price through the LNG market, it is being displaced by coal as the preferred feedstock. Coal-based urea plants have twice the capex of natural gas-based ones. The oil price that triggers a switch to coal is about $50 per barrel in energy equivalent terms. Above that level, coal is the preferred feedstock up to about $200 per barrel at which point wind energy may be viable and the coal has a high value use as feedstock for liquid fuels.
In the longer term, the cost of nuclear power will be the main determinant of transport and agricultural operating costs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With China currently designing and planning on building 50 Thorium nuclear reactors, I have to wonder why that isn’t in the mix shown.
Some wag said that we’ve had a fifty year supply of oil left for the last fifty years.
Do the graphs include shale gas and oil?
Do the graphs include any of the frozen methane at the bottom of the ocean?
As I have said before, petroleum and even coal are much too valuable as raw materials to waste them by combustion.
If (God willing) Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat really works, as I understand the L.E.N.R. principle, burning crude oil derivatives for thermal energy will a thing of the past.
If it really is degasified nano-nickel and a few promoters reducing the Coulomb barrier, then larger units are obviously possible. It’s just a matter of simple heat transfer to avoid the nickel melting.and thus reducing the reaction area.
Even the thorium molten salt reactors will be enormously non-competitive with nickel-hydrogen.
If the US EIA’s report from earlier this year is to be believed there’s at least 3 times more technically recoverable natural gas in shale. With today’s technology.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
Assuming we can readily tap methane clathrates by the end of the century there’s no peak fossil fuel in sight.
Finally, nuclear energy gets mentioned at the end. We don’t need to wait until 2050 to use it. People will be dying unless we maintain high per capita energy use. We should be using more than 2 or 3% of the fuel in a reactor load. The nuclear fuel is far too valuable to stash underground as a radioactive mess. We need to build integral fast reactors. Burn closer to 100% of the fuel and much of the waste. Several problems solved. Consider moving to LH2 fuel produced using nuclear power. With excess inexpensive energy, many currently impossible things become practical.
In the longer term, the cost of nuclear power will be the main determinant of transport and agricultural operating costs.>>>
I’m not really all that concerned about energy. There’s lots of options, and lots of technology yet to be discovered. Now…all the carbon sinking into the ocean where the plants can’t get at it anymore, that concerns me.
Because that means… no more food.
“Peak production is in 2025.”
Ah, that is a projection and with all projections the future isn’t written in stone so therefore the above statement is not accurate to write with “is in” as if it is so.
Something like “Peak production is projected to be in 2025 based on ___ projection” and fill in the source of the projection. Thanks.
Dear David,
Can you point me to the new data on China’s coal reserves? The 2010 Survey of
Energy Resources for the World Energy Council has the US with the largest coal reserves with 237, Russia was second with 157, and China is listed with 114 or 1/10th the reserves you are quoting.
I wasn’t aware that China’s coal reserves had increased by a full factor in the last year or so. I would love to see the data behind an increase of that magnitude.
Here is the 2010 report that I am quoting for top 3 national reserves. The specific reserves by nation start on Page 10.
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
Best,
Jack H Barnes
“…with the heating effect of carbon dioxide being 0.1°C per 100 ppm…”
The relationship is not linear.
John M Reynolds
David,
I believe the energy of the future will be fusion. We are close to break even already with fusion, another technology breakthrough or two and well be there. Plus, ammonia for autos? Hmm…. big problem with all that production of nitrogen oxides when burned, seems pretty much like a show stopper to me. More likely to be hydrogen or electric cars as I see it. A final comment, I think if we develop the vast shale oil deposits around the world that graph (oil portion) could be extended at least another 30-50 years. We should be spending 30-50 billion a year on fusion energy research, not the meager ~1billion a year currently allocated to insure that we make it to the next technology before the fossil fuels run out.
Because We Say So®
Meh…sounds like we’re all gonna die. 2800 AD. AD=All Done?
Enough with the doomsday,please.
On the other hand: the Russians have a very plausible theory that “fossil fuels” are, in fact, the end product of the decomposition and subsequent reformation of carbonates deep in the earth’s crust under the influence of high pressure and clay catalysis.
Having worked on synfuel production, and having analyzed the gunk that plugs the catalysts, I can verify that the Fischer-Tropsch process produces a product that is indistinguishable from “fossil fuels”.
That being the case, and with the abundance of carbon sources in the crust, it would seem that it will be a very long time before we run out of “fossil fuels”.
Also, it is a “natural” process. (Had to slip that one in; couldn’t resist.)
from the article:
“China has the largest coal reserves on the planet of about one trillion tonnes. The United States is next with about 250 billion tonnes.”
Wikipedia is telling a different story. They say that the U.S. is No. 1 in coal reserves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
I realize that Wikipedia is not God. Their treatment of AGW is deplorable. And in general, they go along with ‘Establishment’ views on controversial subjects, while maintaining a facade of journalistic pseudo-objectivity. However I was not aware that coal reserve estimates were all that controversial.
Do you have a reference in the scientific literature for your claim?
“Peak production is in 2025.”
The ignorance and stupidty of this statement is unbelievable.
What are hydrocarbon fuels made from?
What is the most common, and third (or is it fourth) most common element in the universe?
All our descendents need is an industrial process and energy to combine them in a way that locks up liquid chemical energy.
There is and will never be a “peak”.
While I agree with the broad outline of your analysis, David, there are a couple of points on which I think you may not be quite right. You refer to the link between LNG and oil prices, yet my understanding is that the link between gas and oil prices has been broken in the US, due to recent discoveries of large volumes of shale gas. With the prospect of the US becoming an exporter rather than an importer of LNG, and other significant new gas discoveries in the UK, elsewhere in Europe and in Australia, it seems very likely that the international price link will soon be broken also.
Second, I wonder to what extent your information on natural gas reserves has taken into account these new discoveries.
Similarly, the current solar-driven cooling will be associated with a flatlining of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
There is no compelling evidence that the current cooling is solar-driven. We cannot tell at this point, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049380.pdf [ SNIP: Now that was just a tad ungracious and not relevant, don’t you think? -REP]: “One of the merits of using three separate data sets in a correlational analysis is that intercomparisons can be made. After treatment for removal of autocorrelation and nonstationarity through simple averaging and differencing, we find statistically‐significant secular correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This is expected, and it serves as important support for our analysis method. On the other hand, after making the same treatment to the global surface temperature, correlations between temperature and either sunspot number or geomagnetic activity are not significant”.
Yawn. Another peak oil scare story.
What is the source for the forecasts and the methodology used? In addition to the earlier comment on where the shale gas and oil is, where is Putin’s oil hunt in the Arctic and the eventual opening of Mexican gulf waters?
Ammonia to fuel vehicles? It’s used as an industrial refrigerant. When companies using it have problems, whether used for cold storage or in an ice cream plant, if the power goes out or something mechanical goes wrong, and the ammonia is vented as it expands, neighborhoods face evacuation. Yes I know this firsthand, really stinks up the area. And yes, the hazmat people get involved.
And someday we could have ammonia refill stations as common as gas stations are today, with the expected underground tanks? I don’t think so.
Larry Fields says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I first got interested in China’s coal reserves when I plotted up their production profile against the view that their reserves were of the order of 120 billion tonnes. Now that their annual production is 3,000 million tonnes per annum, the new power plants they were building were going to run out of coal before they wore out. Could the Chinese be so idiotic? No, the real number is somewhere north of one trillion tonnes. So they have at least three hundred years left at the current rate. Note this document, page two at the top:http://www.battelle.org/ASSETS/5C05BD3561BD4891888EB7090849541D/china_coal_industry.pdf
That prediction has been made again and again for the last 100 years and we have more proven reserves than ever. There are several proven processes to convert any carbon based waste into either natural gas or light crude (and they don’t require more energy in than you get out like corn based ethanol). The only problem is the stuff pulled out of the ground is still cheaper. When and if the reserves drop or the technology improves even further we will switch to recycling our garbage (and I predict even digging up old land fills) to get our gas and oil. One of the reasons that it is so hard to switch from gasoline for cars is that gasoline has the highest energy density (Jules/liter) than any other fuel. Natural gas takes more volume, ethanol takes more volume etc.
5 years ago the idea of vast quantities of shale gas were laughed at (The Oil Drum is still laughing and looking like idiots). It turns out shale oil isn’t that rare either.
“Geologists have known about the oil in Niobrara for about 80 years. But no one ever thought it could be recovered economically… until now.”
http://oilshalegas.com/niobrarashale.html
There are many fields that were “uneconomical” with old technology that will be revisited.
Hey, alternative view, while FT could happen in some places, it does not produce biomarkers, hopanes, steranes, etc. These are the same compounds that are in peat, coal AND oil.
How much nitrogen and sulfur did you incorporate into your FT fuels? Not much, right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:08 pm
[ SNIP: Now that was just a tad ungracious and not relevant, don’t you think? -REP]: “
No, not at all. Anthony is, of course, entitled to post what he wants, but I do think that his avoiding of this is below his usual high standard.