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.
Thought I’d logged on to realclimate by mistake….
The most straightforward explanation of the interplay between reserves/resources/economics in relation to extracted raw materials that I’ve read is here http://remittanceman.blogspot.com/2008/02/mineral-reserves-and-resources-what.html?zx=9c8b9d29fe2e6a54 .
It’s nearly 4 years old, but that makes no difference.
Iignore the scary content warning, the blogger couldn’t be bothered to get it taken down and wore it as a badge of honour (honor).
Although it applies to minerals (he’s a mining engineer), as RM states in respect of oil etc.:
“The oilies have slightly different rules and definitions but the basic principle is the same.
Put as simply as I can, a Resource exists, a Reserve is the bit you can exploit to some advantage.”
Ammonia is an excellent automobile fuel.
But a society that must remove the word “acid” from low pH Miracid fertilizer won’t permit it….
RE: Enginer says: (November 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm)
“Even the thorium molten salt reactors will be enormously non-competitive with nickel-hydrogen.”
I have not heard of nickel-hydrogen before. I believe the primary message of these “Peak Oil” alerts is that we had better start looking for a future cheap energy source sooner rather than later. That applies even if most of the earlier estimates have tended to be premature.
Kirk Sorensen has been telling the Green Earth people that his molten fluoride salt thorium reactors can make energy so cheap that his manufactured transportation fuels will put the petroleum and coal industries out of business. He is also telling them that all ‘fossil-fuel’ power plants release far more radioactivity in the form of radon gas than that allowed from any nuclear power plant. (It appears they were dubious of his claims and some seem to prefer dependence on limited expensive wind and solar power to minimize human impacts on the planet.)
Here is a two-hour condensed compendium of LIFTR promotional videos. It begins with a short, five-minute, introductory summary. I am *not qualified* to say if this is a viable project or just a way for governments to waste money; the concept, however, does sound very interesting and potentially practical.
LFTR in 5 Minutes – THORIUM REMIX 2011
544 likes, 5 dislikes; 24,924 Views; 1:59:59 (2 Hrs)
Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Oct 4, 2011
“Thorium is readily available & can be turned into energy without generating transuranic wastes. Thorium’s capacity as nuclear fuel was discovered during WW II, but ignored because it was unsuitable for making bombs. A liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the optimal approach for harvesting energy from Thorium, and has the potential to solve today’s energy/climate crisis. LFTR is a type of Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR). This video summarizes over 6 hours worth of thorium talks given by Kirk Sorensen and other thorium technologists.
“THORIUM REMIX 2011 starts with a 5 minute TL;WL summary, to hold you over until you find your Ritalin.”
Peak Death in Japan … “for some”.
…-
“Electricity shortages could mean chilly winter for some”
“People across most of the country should be preparing to bundle up.
With many nuclear power plants offline since the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, electric utilities in some regions will likely face difficulties securing enough power this winter.
Kansai Electric Power Co., which depends on nuclear power for more than 50 percent of its electricity generation, expects that its supply capacity will be 7.1 percent below peak demand in January and 9.5 percent in February.
Similarly, Tohoku Electric Power Co.’s capacity will be 3.4 percent below peak demand in January and 0.5 percent in February, according to estimates. At Kyushu Electric Power Co., the ratio will be 2.2 percent in January.
Other utilities expect their supply capacity to exceed peak demand in winter.”
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ2011111216536
It costs money to look for fossil fuels. It cost more money to determine proven reserve.
The parties that pay such costs are also interested in mining it sometime within a decade or two.
We might run out of fossil fuels- some point. I don’t when.
But if this post were to be correct or vaguely correct.
What would mean if we for some reason didn’t develop future technology that provide the same or better benefits we are currently enjoying by using fossil fuels.
Would we revert to using human muscle to work done fossil fuels- would we, could we return to how used to do thing several centuries ago?
How much is to worth not to do this. How much is worth not to return to time where slavery
is a norm? How much is it worth not live always live in a finite existence.
It seems to only real and final answer is we have leave this planet.
We could do this now, or could done this decade ago. And it’s hard to imagine it not
happening at some point in our future.
Now it it would enormously challenging to go to different star system. And at this point it’s hard to imagine that could vaguely worth the effort. It may be worth the effort 1000 years from now.
But our solar system could provide near infinite resource- all resources human could need.
The hardest part of using our solar system is getting to Low Earth Orbit. Something we done for decades. Our Moon is the gateway to this solar system. There lots minable water and that water can make into rocket fuel. The Moon is a lifeless vacuum. Which good news.
If humans were sane, one shouldn’t need an environment impact report to do anything on the Moon. The is good place to store nuclear waste. And also a good place to operate nuclear reactors [shouldn’t need much much in terms seismic studies, etc or even a containment shield. And if reactor melts down- you lose a reactor- with not much other consequences. If in settlement, yeah it’s a problem.
In terms of solar energy- the moon at least twice the solar energy density anywhere on the Moon compared best places on earth. And vacuum something created on earth in order to make ultrapure silicone needed for PV panels. There is no earth type weathering. There is a good view.
Some lucky fools are going to get very rich doing business on the Moon- and no doubt some fortunes will be lost. The moon will be an exciting frontier, and as gets more cilvilized it we be one of the jumping off point to the rest of the solar system. The moon is a gaint port- it’s Hong Kong.
And really all requires is passing some laws, it’s not a technological problem, it’s more a risk, one biggest risk is legal issues.
And general for US it’s somewhere that there a lot potential for national economic growth- say within a couple decade it could adding say 2% to US economic growth.
‘The next question is,”When carbon becomes rare and expensive, what will we be driving?” ‘
But I do not accept the basis for this question. We are almost literally awash in hydrocarbons that can be converted to the fuels **we want to buy**. And that is the key. For in the end, this is not an issue about ‘peak carbon’, it is an issue about economics.
The the advent of technology like found in the ECat, and other devices that are sure to follow, we will make the economic decision to generate power in ways that do not involve burning something. We will decide to use hydrocarbon fuels where they are economically efficient. The decline in their use will lower their costs.
Lastly, we do indeed have an almost limitless supply of hydrocarbons. One study I say stated that there were enough hydrocarbons in our sewage sludge to replace all oil imports if properly converted. The only issue is the cost of that conversion.
Then there are methane hydrates, a source that the USGS stated: “The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.”
(ref: http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html)
Go LFTR!
More on Thorium Nuclear, probably our best bet at least short term if it does not get NIMBYed.
American Chemical Society: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html
World Nuclear Organization: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=448&terms=thorium
Physics.org: http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
Journal of Energy Security: http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:thorium-as-a-secure-nuclear-fuel-alternative&catid=94:0409content&Itemid=342
Hyperion Power Generation Inc. a private company commercializing intellectual property developed by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory Website: http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about/
Fuji mini reactor: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/minifuji-thorium-reactor-group-talks-to.html
Thorium reactors in transportation: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/minifuji-thorium-reactor-group-talks-to.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Beryllium-uranium_fuel_research_shows_promise-0402118.html
The amazing thing about peak oil, is that every ten years, they move the date of peak oil out by 15 years.
The most important part of this post is rarely mentioned, and it should be often and repeatedly mentioned by everyone against the political restructure of the world by the green coalition. Is this you Gates?? “””The extra 130 ppm-odd from the current level will increase agricultural productivity by 23%”””
YES, the benefits of CO2 are KNOWN, and continue to increase at more then a linear rate, while the potential, maybe, always fails to manifest harm, DECREASES at logarithmic rate.
AAs far as “peak oil”, well peak and you will find it. The operating and known reserves always go 30 to 50 years. Why?; well because companies do not look further then that as there is no economic incentive. Nuclear, coal to liquid, shale etc, all will be available.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:08 pm
There is no compelling evidence that the current cooling is solar-driven. We cannot tell at this point,
—
And there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has anything to do with the recent warm spell.
Leif … do you have a reference to support your statement that there was a shortage of barrels in the 1860’S? This site suggests that there was not! http://sites.google.com/site/petroleumhistoryresources/Home/42-gallon-oil-barrel
gbaikie, what nuclear waste? The vast bulk of it, all of the U238 and the various plutonium transuranics are all just new fuel waiting to be reprocessed. Why would we ever throw away all that useful, high energy density fuel? Dumping it on the moon is the most useless and most hazardous thing we can do with it.
China has the largest coal reserves on the planet of about one trillion tonnes.
The Chinese have 114 billion tons of ‘exploitable’ coal reserves.
http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/wR5MezrJ2SJ6NfFl5sb5Jg/10_china_pankexi.pdf
Vastly smaller then the 250 million tons of ‘exploitable’ reserves in the US.
Coal has 3 categories –
Economically recoverable
Exploitable
Reserves
The average American or Australian coal miner produces in excess of 12,000 tons per year. The average Chinese coal miner produces less then 600 tons per year. If Chinese coal miners got paid something resembling a ‘decent wage’ the amount of economically recoverable coal in China would be zero.
Crispin — If only our leaders were smart enough to use other’s oil while reserving our resources for later! Generally, we don’t think that long-term.
We put our oil reserves off limits in order to appease certain special interest groups. There is also a belief that if we don’t have enough hydrocarbon fuels to meet our needs, “green energy” will magically blossom to meet all our needs (but only if we really believe, I suppose).
MarkW says:
November 14, 2011 at 4:51 am
“There is no compelling evidence that the current cooling is solar-driven.”
And there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has anything to do with the recent warm spell.
‘current cooling’ – ‘recent warm spell’ ? which one is it?
As long as there is decomposition, decaying of organic materials there will be methane.
Another important thing to think about is the case of carbo-di-amide (Urea) used as fertilizer: Usually farmers use Urea as a nitrogen fertilizer,( they use it A LOT) and they think that´s all what Urea is about, however it is not, IT PROVIDES CARBON in an assimilable form for crops, because CARBON FROM THE ATMOSPHERE IS SCARCE (just a few 350 ppm), and CARBON IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT FOR CROPS AS PLANTS´BODY IS MADE OF CELLULOSE- A GLUCOSE C6H12O6 POLYMER- where H and O is taken from water.
Chances are, if anathematization of Carbon succeeds, before occidental culture´s bankruptcy, occidental people will be left without proper cotton underwear. ( A second grade consequence of Al Baby´s fanatic creed). 🙂
Before the first commercial thorium fueled nuclear power plant pays for itself harvest of solar energy will be cheap enough to make nuclear power too expensive to compete. The key is synthetic biology. Green plants have been harvesting sunlight and producing combustable hydrocarbons for billions of years. Green algae thrive using water that’s not otherwise usable for human consumption or agriculture i.e. municipal wastewater, brackish water, and sea water. We’ve barely taken the first baby steps in synthetic biology and several firms already have patents on genetically modified algae that can produce 20,000+ gallons/acre/year of liquid fuels competitive with oil at $30/bbl. Just 10% of area of the Texas panhandle used for this purpose can satisfy current energy needs of the entire United States. The Texas panhandle isn’t used for much of anything other than oil wells, windmills, and a few cattle. There is one person living there per 150 acres.
We’ve barely scratched the surface in what’s possible in synthetic biology. Once it is mature the cost of harvesting sunlight and transforming it into hydrocarbon fuels will fall to pennies per barrel equivalent. It’s only a matter of time and it won’t be much longer. Progress in synthetic biology is taking place at the same rate it happened with semiconductors.
No one is going to risk billions of dollars building nuclear power plants which will very likely never turn a profit because something else is in the pipeline which will render them unable to sell electricity at a profit. There’s a reason why all the energy we need isn’t being produced by nuclear power plants. They are expensive and cannot compete with gas or coal on a level playing field. Thorium reactors are even more expensive. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. In trade for enhanced operating safety, less hazardous waste to dispose of, and difficulty in using them to produce weapons grade radioisotopes, comes a higher construction and operating cost.
L.E.N.R. would be lovely but as of this moment it’s considered not theoretically possible and in that regard it holds no promise whatsoever. The so called e-cat is almost certainly no more than a confidence scheme (a.k.a. “a con job”).
.
harrywr2 says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:31 am
Archibald: “China has the largest coal reserves on the planet of about one trillion tonnes.”
The Chinese have 114 billion tons of ‘exploitable’ coal reserves.
http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/wR5MezrJ2SJ6NfFl5sb5Jg/10_china_pankexi.pdf
————————————————————————-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Archibald evidently thinks he’s entitled to his own facts.
Armchair experts on the subject of resource scarcity tend to get it wrong more than the experts who also have to move the chains every ten years or so. Pretty graphs don’t make up for the lack of technical knowledge on sectors that are tech and investment heavy and with a fair number of unknown variables in the ground and on the consumer adaptation side of technology. Did the industry experts that pioneered shale gas competitiveness fully understand the global resource implications of their trial and error process of producing in the Barnett Shale? and did government resource modeling groups closely monitor this development? Probably not in both cases but the point it it happened by a process innovation and risk taking that was not in anyone’s model or on any pretty chart prior to that time. Unfortunately there are few costs for getting it wrong among armchair forecasters on subjects they have limited grasp of. They just fade away only to be replaced by the next supposed expert in the next short-term uptick in an inherently unstable market.
“The point is not whether the fuel is available, nor whether it can be recovered, the point is….do the governments WANT the fuel ?”
Everyone misses the point in these discussions about peak oil. You’re right about availability and recoverability. There can be veritable oceans of oil and lots of clever new ways to extract it. However, it takes energy to get energy. The point is summed up in this question, “How much energy does it take to extract the oil?” Once it takes as much energy to extract a barrel of oil from the ground as the oil can deliver, then you’re done. You might as well sell the energy you control or put it into some other enterprise rather than putting it into extraction.
Of course, long before you reach energy parity pumping out an oil field, the energy expense of transporting and refining the petroleum will match the energy delivered. Its about energy in – energy out, and all of your profits are tied to the energy expense.
Hubbert predicted that the US would reach peak in the ’70s and switch from being a net exporter of oil to being a net importer of oil. It happened exactly as he predicted. As the US goes, so goes the rest of the world.
Jon says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:16 am
Leif … do you have a reference to support your statement that there was a shortage of barrels in the 1860′S?
I always have support for every statement I make:
Daniel Yergin: The Prize [The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power]. ISBN 1-4391-1012-3, page 12, line 9: “There was no shortage of rock oil. The only shortage now was of whiskey barrels and they soon cost almost twice as much as the oil inside them”. Note 7 to chapter one provides further support.
davidmhoffer says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Now…all the carbon sinking into the ocean where the plants can’t get at it anymore, that concerns me.
=============================================
Well, you have to think……what made it drop from the thousands….to limiting for plant growth
Gail Combs says:
November 14, 2011 at 4:45 am
Nice collection of hyperbolic web sites but you might want to at least check the year when the stuff was written.
For instance the physorg link to the Hyperion portable nuclear reactors was dated 2008 and talked about orders for 20 units from some eastern european country and license review in 2009 by US nuclear regulatory agency.
Since then the 2008 design was scrapped, a new design was produced in 2009, and there isn’t so much as an experimental prototype been built yet or a gram of fuel produced at the end of 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_Generation
Don’t you think owe readers here just a tiny bit of due diligence? Just because you can post this kind of crap and waste people’s time doesn’t mean you should. It’s not exactly evil but it’s selfish and ignorant. Clean up your act.
Looking at these graphics, made me think of “The King” or as Elvis would say:
Oh but this time, Lord You gave me a mountain
A mountain, I may never climb
It isn’t just a hill any longer
You gave me a mountain this time