Nature’s (Not-Quite) Perfect Battery
by Indur M. Goklany
The major drawback of solar power and other renewables is that they cannot be relied on to deliver energy at their rated capacity for every hour of every day of the full year. Hence, the dollars, effort and human capital devoted to developing more efficient and low cost batteries.
But Nature has already solved this problem for us a very long time ago. It developed a system to capture solar energy and store it underground for future use in gas, liquid or solid form — to be used any time or anywhere we want, in rain or shine or in windy or calm conditions.
We call this energy capture system, “photosynthesis”, and this battery, “fossil fuels”.
Nature would never have thought that elements of humanity would look this gift horse in the mouth. That—even as they use it to turn night into day and make their labor more productive, allowing them to devote much of their waking hours to activities more fulfilling than the constant pursuit of food and sustenance—they would complain about returning the basic building block of its energy store, CO2, back to the atmosphere whence it came, particularly, since this building block sustains much of the living world, including humanity itself.
Some human beings have gone so far as to favor newer storage sources (AKA biomass) over fossil fuels. But biomass itself returns its carbon to the atmosphere. So long as one uses carbon-based combustion, the chances of reducing CO2 emissions are nil, whether one uses new biomass or a fossil fuel. In fact, since newer carbon sources are also associated with higher moisture content in the fuel, burning them would increase CO2 per unit of usable energy.
But Nature’s battery is not perfect, it does release air pollutants. However, CO2 isn’t a pollutant. And the air pollutants that it emits are today cleaned relatively easily without suffering a massive energy or economic penalty.
Should we not celebrate Nature’s (not quite perfect) battery, even though it isn’t perfection itself?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I on the other hand bought a multi fuel burning stove and I buy smokeless coal for just under £500 per ton (cheaper than my father was buying for in the 1980′s) ”
£500 per ton for coal works out to £250 per barrel of oil on an energy equivalence basis.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy – June 2010
World coal consumption was essentially flat in 2009, the weakest year since 1999. For the first time since 2002 coal was not the fastest-growing fuel in the world. The OECD and Former Soviet Union experienced the steepest declines on record, while growth elsewhere was near average, largely due to above-average growth in China, which accounted for 46.9% of global coal consumption.
http://coal.infomine.com/commodities/
Richard says:
September 2, 2011 at 4:41 am
“The viewers might consider the life of mold on the skin of an orange. From small beginnings, the mold prospers at a rapid rate until if totally covers the skin of the orange. Then as the orange is consumed the mold dies leaving behind mold spores seeking another orange. Earth is the human orange.”
I love Malthusian comparisons. It shows so neatly the high opinion Malthusians have of mankind.
So, over an extended time period burning fossil fuels in actually carbon-neutral. Brilliant!
Are the high CO2 levels of past geologic ages responsible for our modern civilization?
At the 6th International Conference on Climate Change Dr. Scott Denning gave a lecture on climate sensitivity. He postulated: unless rigorous action takes place to reduce CO2 emissions, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 level from the 400 ppm to 800 ppm will occur. If this happens he predicted dire consequences for human life.
From numerous investigations into pleolevels of atmospheric CO2 (for example, see Robert A. Berner, Am. J. Science, v. 301, pp. 182-204) it was found that during Phanerozoic age (from 540 million years ago to the present) CO2 levels were as high 6000 ppm. During the Eocene period (34 to 56 million years ago) sodium carbonate mineral stability relations show that CO2 levels were greater than 1125 ppm.
It was during these periods of high CO2 levels that animal and plant life flourished and huge deposits of the decaying vegetation were formed and then buried under later sediments. These deeply buried sediments of organic material were subjected very high pressures and temperatures which converted the organic material to the present day deposits of coal, oil and gas. Examples of United States and Canadian coal deposits that formed in these past geologic ages are: (1) the Devonian coal beds in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia and in the Northwest Territories of Canada, and (2) the Eocene coal deposits of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.
There is an irony here – the concern over the present CO2 levels while ignoring the CO2 levels in past geologic ages. If CO2 levels during these past ages were the same as the present levels there would be few coal, gas and petroleum deposits. An advanced civilization, such as we now have, depends on the access to energy. Without ample coal deposits here would have been no industrial revolution in England, without ample petroleum deposits there would be no automobile industry, without ample natural gas fields there would be no gas-fired electric power plants, gas home heating, gas stoves and dryers. Without these sources of energy the human race would advance no further than that of Stone Age man. Perhaps that is where the Greens wish the human race to be, living in caves and eating roots.
Good points. Coal, oil, & natural gas being solar energy storage batteries. And mosty recycleable, too.
NOTE to mods: Upstream post is spam–Lena says: September 2, 2011 at 4:30 am, Good point there. I agree! Or appears to be.
It’s called paleosolar energy. No silicon, tellurium or cadmium required.
Diamonds. That’ll shut her up (for awhile).
H/T Comedian Ron White
Dr. Science:
Also, running nuclear reactors CLEANS the Earth of radiactive elements! Why, U and daughter products (Polonium, Radon, Radium) are long lived. Putting the U in a reactor, actually “speeds up” the decay. The activity of HIGH LEVEL WASTE is below that of the ORE FROM WHICH IT CAME after 300 years of isolation. (Drop in the bucket, geological time.)
Max
higley7 says:
September 2, 2011 at 5:31 am
Then we have the hydrocarbons apparently emanating from the Earth’s core as natural gas and petroleum. It’s clear that natural gas from 12,000 feet down cannot be from fossil material that was once something like a swamp.
————–
Of course you can, oil and gas generation is dependant on temperature not depth, so a low geothermal gradient could see gas generated from 1000’s meters below the surface. Basic petroleum geology will teach you that. Abiotic petroleum is not produced in any significant quantities here in earth.
“Then as the orange is consumed the mold dies leaving behind mold spores seeking another orange. Earth is the human orange”
Why limit the comparison to humans? A single pair of fruit flies would quickly cover the earth in their offspring if all were to survive. The same is true of almost any life form.
Contrary to popular belief, humans are not the dominant life form on earth. We just like to believe we are. Worms and jellyfish rule the earth and they are not the least concerned about CO2 or global warming.
Carbon trading/taxes do not reduce CO2 emissions, it simply moves it from one spot on the earth to another, with money changing hands as a result. Here in BC, Pacific Carbon Trading is making millions, without adding any net benefit to the economy.
This money is being drained out of school system budgets, for example, to flow to the owners of PCT. The scheme was never intended to reduce CO2. It was created by politicians to drain taxpayer money into the hands of friends of the government, using the environmental movement as as smoke screen. Follow the money.
It’s not the demon the left make it out to be, but energy security and middle east concerns are valid enough reasons to look for alternatives to fossil fuels. Of course having the gov’t forcing premature alternatives on us before they are economically and technically viable is not the way to go.
G. Karst says:
September 2, 2011 at 7:41 am
Great post G!
Geoff Sherrington says:
Trees are no longer sustainable once their repeated removal has taken required nutrients like P and K from the soil, leaving it barren. Then you have to fertilize.
++++++++++
There are many tons of P and K in the soil in an insoluble form. Very interesting and well-proven work done at ARTI in Pune, India by Dr AD Karve shows that this insoluble P+K can be liberated by bacteria. Fertilising the bacteria causes them to proliferate and make the P+K available to plants. This fertilisation is done by adding sugar and water to the soil now and then. There are thousands of Indian farmers using this technique instead of the West’s more energy intensive (not to mention money-intensive) fertilisers.
A separate issue with trees is ground acidification – the claim being that fast rotation of monocultured trees will accumulate acids (particularly pines). A study of this possible effect was done in the world’s most intensively cropped forests (the Usuthu Forest) in Swaziland by Bayliss about 1990. He found no increase in acidity at all. Incidentally the Usuthu and other highveld forests in Swaziland were planted from scratch so the baseline conditins are well known from nearby hills.
The barren/depleted soil from tree cropping argument is false.
JJwright says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:03 am
When there is no wind for wind turbines …
When there are no tides for tidal generation …
When there it is night..
then we should use the batteries from the carboniferous.
Do you run your battery torch during the day when there is sunlight to see with? No – you of course turn it off and use the renewable source.
Power stations running on fossil fuels CAN be turned down or even off if their energy is not required.
Even if the station is running as spinning reserve (a few seconds to full power) then its power consumption can be greatly reduced. (remember a full 1GW is required to run as spinning reserve to back up a nuclear plant (in case of scram) but only 7MW is required to back up a windtubine crash!)
========================================================================
JJ, I don’t mean to sound mean, but, I think I should clear some things up for you.
First of all, the backup generation necessary is entirely dependent upon the output, not the source. Its silly to think of it in the manner you expressed.
Secondly, you don’t understand the nature of the sources of energy used for electric generation. Natural gas can be brought up to capacity in a very short time. Nuclear and coal takes days. And while the output can be adjusted, it isn’t a quick process and is limited in the amount to be varied.
Nuclear is an animal of its own, and its fuel, generation, and output isn’t easily compared to other sources of energy. It takes days to bring one on line. And, once it is on line, its best to just let it do its thing.
Coal and gas……. the easiest analogy is to consider cooking and barbeques. Yes, with a gas stove, one can easily turn up and down it’s output, but coal should be considered much like charcoal, you burn it and it produces heat, but you can’t just turn it off and increases or decreasing the output is much more difficult than turning a knob. The heat/energy has to go somewhere.
In the ideal world, nuclear and coal should be used for the base load. (That is the amount of energy required at the lowest level of the day.) And their output should remain relatively constant. Gas would then be used as a supplement for peak demand. That’s the problem with your soft renewables. You never know when or how much energy will be available. You can’t use it for a base load and it isn’t reliable enough for peak demand, because you don’t know if or how much it will be available.
Lastly, in order to utilize the soft renewables, obviously we must have backup generation available. This is always in the form of natural gas generation because of what was stated above. Do you understand how much resources are spent for this duplicity? The countless miles of transmission line required? The maintenance? The substations? I really don’t believe we’ll get to the point where soft renewables contribute more energy and fuel than what is required to create and maintain the facilities. Maybe a few generations from now, but no time soon. Then understand all of the capital spent to realize a net negative investment.
Soft renewables are costing this nation enormously in terms of capital, energy, fuel, and resources. If anyone were to truly desire to turn this nation’s (the U.S., but it would apply in other nations, as well.) economy around, simply walk away from soft renewables, embrace the sources of energy we have, and produce more. If the world were to do this, the world’s economy and general health and welfare of the population would improve in a few fortnights.
If my ability to communicate the certain thoughts listed above was too poor, please, just ask for clarification.
Best wishes,
James
Eco-green types are fundamentally mankind haters. They want to impose irrational energy policy on humans because they hate the idea of humans being exceptional and using our minds to explore and create from the earth. Careful how you vote.
Byz says (September 2, 2011 at 1:58 am)
Wow… the cost of energy is sure different here in West Virginia. Coal sells wholesale at the mine for around $60 US per ton. Firewood (Oak hardwood) sells delivered for $125 per cord ( approx 1 ton). We heated our house last winter with 7 cords of wood we cut and split ourselves. We only use propane for backup (about 100 gallons last winter).
Pyrolyzation (charcoal) offers an interesting alternative to burning: take some of the energy with the gas and keep the carbon in char form to add as a soil enhancer. The terra preta soils of the amazon seem to offer centuries of high fertility for the one-time investment of char. Several land grant schools and other institutions are experimenting with this exciting technology from the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
Who told you that fossil fuels were from fossils? Wasn’t it the same sort of people who support the hippie green movement? I keep telling people to read Thomas Gold’s “Deep Hot Biosphere” book to counter this nonsense, but, apparently that would be too easy.
READ The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
Richard111 says:
September 2, 2011 at 4:53 am
“Can anyone explain to this dumb layman just how oil is formed from fossils?
Which branch, animal or vegetable? What volume of ‘fossil’ biota was needed
to produce not only today’s known reserves but also the huge quantities already
used and how come the ‘fossils’ got so deep into the rock structures?
(seven miles down was last report I read)”
A few sources… swampland, forests and coastal margins. As organic debris layers on the surface, eventually is compacts and de-waters. This makes a peat like material. Layer it deeper in the sediment and have fold belts form from geologic stresses, compressing the material and heating it (due to the depth that winds up at from the over laying strata) and it starts to form coal.
In fact, here is a rough layout of how mature the material is -> peat – lignite – bitumen – anthracite.
Another source material is commonly seen in ROV footage as the deep ocean is explored. “Marine Snow.” This accumulates on continental shelves and undergoes a similar process. To give you an idea of just how thick the sediment can be…. in the Gulf of Mexico, the sediment layer can be upwards of 12 to 13 km thick. And that is just what has accumulated since the GOM opened up and became the GOM. Before that the Yucatan peninsula was next to Texas, and the chunk-o-land that became South Florida was next to New Orleans.
If you like to read, this may be enlightening.
http://berg-hughes.tamu.edu/papers/conventional_petroleum/ne_gulf.pdf
“Of course you can, oil and gas generation is dependant on temperature not depth, so a low geothermal gradient could see gas generated from 1000′s meters below the surface. Basic petroleum geology will teach you that. Abiotic petroleum is not produced in any significant quantities here in earth.”
There is a parallel here with regard to the search for an economical fusion reaction.
The fusion in the sun occurs due to the large mass of the sun. That huge mass and the gravity it generates is what causes the fusion reaction. We will never be able to use magnets to generate an economical fusion reaction because the energy required by the magnets to compress and “heat” the fuel will be greater than the energy released.
Same principle goes for fossil fuel. The compounds are formed thanks to the intense heat and pressure generated by the mass of the planet. There is no work-around for the actual creation of energy. It’s the mass of the matter gathered from space that fuels such reactions. Fortunately matter is attracted matter by gravitation.
“Creation” of free energy by man denies the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Nuke Nemesis says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:44 am
Karl-Johan Lehtinen says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:53 am
“Sooner or later we have to take this “newer” coal into use since we are emptying our fossil deposits at a terrible pace where demand has outgrown supply already in the 2030s. According to IEA we would need 3-4 Saudi Arabias to meet the demand by that time.
The USA has a few centuries worth of coal. If we start exporting large amounts for world-wide needs, then the supply won’t last as long, of course. But like oil, the problem is not in lack of deposits but in having a large number of deposits declared off-limits by the state.”
Known coal deposits that have never been exploited are manifold. Siberia and Zimbabwe each have more of these, a lot more, than the U.S. Most countries in southern Africa have unexploited coal and I suspect that this is true of many countries. It is the lack of nearby BIG markets and the cost of transport that has countermanded exploitation for a century or so. Those deposits will still be there when they are needed.
Maybe this whole thing is a result of primal instinct. Human social nature has been responsible for our rapid success in nature. One social construct is fairness and sharing which helped build human society by allowing a general welfare among the tribes. This welfare allowed us to increase our numbers, fend off preditors, and allowed time for learning and the sharing of knowledge.
It is inherent in humans to have empathy for those less fortunate. In the industrialized world we have more of everything than those in emerging nations, this causes guilt via our empathy toward those less fortunate. The whole environmental movement is a salve to assuage our guilt over having more.
We live like king Midas and we feel guilty that the poor live like feudal kings. If we had everything we wanted, we would feel guilt about someone else having marginally less. If all you own is a stick, for example, you might feel bad for the other guy whom has no stick. If everyone had a stick, you might feel a small amount of guilt over someone elses stick being smaller or of a less popular color.
There are people making a great deal of money off this guilt, they are secretly guilty which is why charity organizations exist. I could go on but everyone knows this, we just don’t want to talk about it.
Sorry, I have no link available, but this note regarding “fossil fuels” might of interest. I recently stumbled upon a scientific journal article that claimed Russian scientists have for more than 50 years rejected the Western consensus about how oil is formed. Apparently, as a group, they contend oil is formed from pressure deep inside the earth, and that the process is ongoing. In short, oil is NOT a fossil fuel; photosynthesis is not involved in the creation of oil. Fascinating, if true.
As I recall, the article was part of a web site that linked to dozens of other scientific journal articles. Wish my memory was better. The article further contended that since the Russians are among the world’s experts at locating oil deposits, their theory must of course be correct, or at least possibly correct.
BTW, I am not paid by any fuel corporation, fossil or otherwise. This note has been included merely for discussion, not monetary reward.
John Day says:
September 2, 2011 at 3:29 am
“A brilliant essay, Indur, intended for the AGW/CAGW audience, who will be conflicted to discover that their worst enemy is also their best friend. (In the same sense that Mr. Obama might admire his own worst enemy (the Tea Party) as a very effective bunch of grass-roots Community Organizers)”
John,
No one should perceive The Tea Party as their ‘enemy’. Tea Party folks all want this country and its citizens to succeed, while embracing our private enterprise system, our ‘melting pot’ culture, and supporting our Constitution and Representative Republic of United States! The Tea Party embraces the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King. We have judged Barack Hussein Obama on the contents of his character, and not the color of his skin, and found him profoundly lacking in experience, leadership, wisdom, and common sense.
We (the Tea Party folks) are the ‘enemies’ of no politician or citizen. We are for fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, debt and interest payment reductions, and a smaller and less intrusive government. It’s as simple and straight forward as that.
I don’t understand why people make such a fuss – all we are doing is returning sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere. If it didn’t cause the Earth to heat up dangerously before it was sequestered into these underground batteries, why should it cause any problem now?
I worked out the other day why dinasaurs were so huge, and the ferns they lived on so tall. All that lovely not yet turned into batteries CO2 of course – about 5,000 parts per million was it? Now that all the carbon has all but been depleted, and CO2 is a measly 400 ppm, we have small trees and small animals, and humans, who are not bright enough to understand their own carbon based life form.