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.
Cooling – warming – cooling
they are all parts of the normal natural variability,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
which is only loosely associated with the sunspot count, sometimes precedes it sometime follows, there is no specific rule, just go along time line 1650-2010, delay in temperatures you can associate with solar activity, but what about the temperatures taking off in advance( e.g.1700, 1820 etc)?
Don’t forget the solar output isn’t just sunspots and TSI.
Jay Curtis says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:14 am
“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?””
Yes but you miss the point that the cost of extraction is continually reduced through technological advances. Why should anyone presume that extraction cost will suddenly flatline when it had been continually improving since the beginnimg of the industrial revolution?
davidgmills:
The first rule of batteries: There are liars, there are damn liars and then there are battery chemists.
Having said the above, a cheap battery that lasts 5000 cycles is impressive. The energy density seems unremarkable. The web site gave 30 Wh/l. I assume that reads 30 Watt hours per liter. That’s not much different than a lead-acid battery.
If the battery is cheap enough, even if its developers don’t achieve all their targeted values, it will find a market.
Prior to 1859 (Drake’s well) oil was collected from natural seeps. In the 1600s . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well
“. . . this “mineral-oil” was used primarily for medicinal purposes and was reputed to cure many ailments, . . .” Depletion (if that is the right word) has been going on at an increasing rate since these early uses.
So, when (@ur momisugly 2:09 am) ‘Bob the swiss says’ The depletion of oil will start not later than 2015” … and that crisis after crisis will follow, he seems to be thinking of “peak oil” followed by a very rapid decline. The concept of “fungibility” springs to mind. Bob and fellow believers in his scenarios may want to investigate this concept.
Cars, buses, and airplanes can operate on fuel derived by algae. Cost is currently about 20 times that of regular (aka ‘bad’) fuel. Keep in mind that at one time not long ago aluminum was a very expensive metal. When the aluminum cap was made and placed on the Washington Monument “. . . the cost of one ounce of aluminum was equivalent to a full day’s work. The highest skilled craftsman on the monument project was paid $2 per day.”
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.html
I expect to live beyond 2015 (Bob’s date) but being an optimist, I don’t expect to live sufficiently long enough to see catastrophe from lack of oil.
@spector
Thanks for posting up that video. It’s probably the saddest thing I’ve seen in a long while. How is it that we can spend half a trillion dollars demonising the way we do things now and on alternatives that will never reach our needs, yet we can’t spend a few billion on something that will advance humankind immeasurably?
How have we allowed the misanthropes to get such a level of power over us?
Jay Curtis says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:14 am
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.
So, the rest of the world are also net importers of oil… I wonder where all that comes from if everyone is importing…Outer space?
(emphasis mine)
Once it costs more to extract a barrel of oil than what people are willing to pay, then you’re done. Otherwise oil-based fuels such a gasoline, diesel and jet fuel will continue to be used because they are wonderful formats for storing energy. These fuels are energy-packed and are easily transported.
At least Hubbert got one thing–the US because a net importer of oil in the 1970’s–right.
Dave Springer says:
November 14, 2011 at 6:56 am
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.
==========================================
I’m a synthetic biologist. You’re right. I was at the big Advanced Biofuel Markets Conference in San Francisco last week and some of the advances made recently have been huge. In addition to the algae developments, cellulosic sugar technology development has been outstanding regarding bringing down the price of feedstock.
One presentation that stood out was from a guy whose company was going public, so he couldn’t talk about it (the fact that his company was going public should be a clue to the biofuel haters that this is a serious industry and they might want to think about getting up to speed). So, he graciously turned up anyway and gave a really excellent lecture on the concept of “biomass reserves”. When it comes online, I’ll link to it.
The take home message was that if you do simple calculations, with conservative numbers, the “biomass reserves”, i.e. the amount of biomass that will be achieved over say a 21 year land contract (the number he used), is just enormous. For example, going from memory – for Brazil, it’s 4X the Saudi Arabian oil reserves. He also pointed out that Brazil has been growing sugarcane for 500 years (so why even stop at 21 years). The U.S. numbers were pretty huge too.
I think we’ll be hearing much more about this concept. Sorry I don’t have a link yet, but slide 10 of this one should provide a preview:
http://www.treia.org/assets/documents/Shaping-TX-Fuel-Ethanol-Policy-Conf_1445e_Swayze_Biofuel-Feedstock-Dev-in-TX.091010.pdf
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:37 am
Don’t forget the solar output isn’t just sunspots and TSI.
Variations of solar output are due to the varying solar magnetic field, which is well described by sunspots and TSI and any other solar index [cosmic rays, UV, CMEs, F10.7, Ca K-line, etc, etc]. They all vary together. So, it is just sunspots and TSI, after all.
I have scanned through the comments, and those who dispute peak oil are still making the same mistakes we covered the last few times this has come up. It doesn’t matter what’s in the ground, be it shale oil, shale gas, oil sands, kerogen, or deep ocean deposits. It doesn’t even matter if oil is abiotic (which has been well refuted http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf).
Peak oil has always been about production rates. That is, flow rates. What counts is how fast one can extract the oil. New fields, these unconvensional deposits, cannot flow at the rates we saw with convensional sources. Older fields are declining faster than new fields are coming on line. For example, the Cantarell field at its peak produced some 2.2mb/day in 2004. Today, just 0.45mb/day and falling fast.
By comparison, the Alberta Oil Sands is producing 1.5m/day. The most that is expected to be produced is 3mb/day in 15 years (Canada consumes 3mb/day, the US 20mb/day). By then, other older fields will be even further in decline, like Ghawar. The limiting factor for the oil sands is, ironically, another fossil fuel — natural gas. It is needed in vast quantities to cap the ends of the hydrocarbon chains as the synthetic oil is produced from the bitumen. Right now, the oil sands production consumes THREE TIMES the amount of NG that ALL of Canadian homes consume. This means the bulk of shale gas production will be consumed by the oil sands to boost production to the 3mb/day.
So, please, all those who ridcule peak oil, please take note. We are not refering to geological peak. Peak oil is about flow rates. In spite of the new process, new production from unconvensional sources, flow rates will decline. These unconvensional sources will only mean that that slow production will last longer. Provided, that is, there is sufficient credit in the ecomony to build that production. The future of available credit is in doubt.
Bruce says:
November 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm
David Archibald: “Shale gas and shale oil wells have vicious decline rates – down to 15% of the initial flow by year three.”
But they can be refracked. Or new wells drills nearby. You are trying to confuse people. Shale Gas is not the same as drilling into a big trapped pocket of gas. You are drilling into shale, you frack it. Production flows. When it stops flowing you frack nearby. Over and over again. The wells are costing so little compared to production …
——
Not entirely correct.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212
Dave Springer,
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.
That is a very Mid Western US cost centric view.
Globally the price of coal varies from 50 cents/MMbtu to $6.00/MMBtu.
Natural Gas Varies from $3.00/MMBtu to $10/MMBtu.
Even within the US there is a considerable variance as to the delivered price of natural gas
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_SUM_LSUM_A_EPG0_PEU_DMCF_M.htm
As well as substantial variance in delivered coal prices.
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html
Nuclear generally compares favorably with coal at $4/MMBtu and natural gas at $6/MMBtu(natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive to build and more efficient then coal plants)
The delivered price of coal in Florida is pretty close to $4/MMBtu and the delivered to electric utility price of natural gas is $6/MMtu.
I won’t disagree regarding your definition of peak oil. It’s the imminence and implications of peak oil that are incorrect.
Isn’t that exactly the goal of developing unconventional sources?
You are correct, of course, concerning flow rates and especially the wanton misuse of valuable natural gas for oil extractions. While it is cheap today (therefore economically feasible), we have better efficient uses for this gas. Using any reactor designed for massive low grade heat would be wiser and more prudent. Why is it that whenever we have a large supply of something, it gives us license to squander it, until scarcity restricts it. GK
Hi Leif … your quote refers to a shortage of barrels at the advent of drilling. Graham No. 3 was referring to the date 1862 … the reference you gave also states: “Production in western Pennsylvania rose rapidly—from about 450000 barrels in 1860 to 3 million barrels in 1862. The market could not develop quickly enough to match the swelling volume of oil. Prices which had been $10 a barrel in January 1861, fell to 50 cents by June and by the end of 1861 were down to 10 cents.”
Dave Springer says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:31 am
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…..
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.
____________________________
It is a rapidly changing field and HISTORY is just as important as future expectations. If you want NOW. Here is the last Thorium Energy Conference on October 11, 2011: http://www.itheo.org/articles/announcing-thec11-thorium-energy-conference
Highlights: http://www.itheo.org/thorium-energy-conference-2011
I picked the other sites from chemistry, physics and Nuclear organizations because they were more “Neutral” towards Thorium than a site promoting Thorium.
OK now you can fire both barrels again because the site I put up is BIAS.
paulhan says:
November 14, 2011 at 8:25 am
@spector
Thanks for posting up that video. It’s probably the saddest thing I’ve seen in a long while….
How have we allowed the misanthropes to get such a level of power over us?
___________________________________
Very easy. Those who will climb over dead bodies, those without a conscience have a major advantage over the honest, especially if they also have intelligence, money and charisma.
‘current cooling’ – ‘recent warm spell’ ? which one is it?
The warming that ended with the recent cooling, as you well know.
“Well, you have to think……what made it drop from the thousands….to limiting for plant growth”
From what I have read, that would be the Himalayas.
MarkW says:
November 14, 2011 at 10:18 am
“Well, you have to think……what made it drop from the thousands….to limiting for plant growth”
From what I have read, that would be the Himala
======================================
Nope, not fast enough
The evolution of different plankton and grasses, however, fits the curve perfectly
As with almost anything…..it’s a lot easier to describe something chemically….the lazy man’s explanation…..and a lot harder to explain it biologically
As a result, chemical explanations are taught…in a biological world
Re: Fig 4
Can we please have the energy density compared by mass instead of volume ???
Also, as a rule of thumb with regard to efficiency (and costs), it is always better to start with a highly concentrated source of energy (IE Nuclear) raher than trying to collect a lot of diffuse energy and concentrate it. (wind, ethanol, solar, etc).
Great.
What are your data sources?
The IEA, CDIAC, EIA, EPA, etceteras?
I don’t see any links to your data sources or your own data?
Where’s your data?
Transparancy anyone?
Comparing the RATE of CO2 versus the TOTAL fossel fuel equivalent output?
One normally compares RATE versus RATE, or TOTAL vs TOTAL, care to justify comparing RATE versus TOTAL?
For some odd reason, you appear (or seem) to be saying, that the RATE of atmospheric CO2 will somehow EXACTLY follow the TOTAL fossel fuel equivalent output.
Care to fully justify that apparent assumption?
Care to fully justify TOTAL fossel fuel equivalent output out to 2300AD, you know like 289 years in the future?
Just your own graphs and no links?
Watts Up With That?
Jon says:
November 14, 2011 at 9:42 am
your quote refers to a shortage of barrels at the advent of drilling.
So? Shortages come and go. At the point I was referring to, the number of barrels was a limiting factor, at other times it is political factors, at other times something else. When was there actually a shortage of oil? rather than other factors being the real limitation at any one time.
D…..jogger at Nov13-600pm. … Says it best. The world will find cheap energy – no big problem,
But keeping CO2 OUT of the oceans is our biggest problem…! I AGREE..!
We need to work at getting rid of this “carbon footprint” nonsense…
We need to KILL the UN’s IPCC….!
And stay high above some CO2 low…is it 170ppm? GET more of this good stuff up there.
Jay Curtis says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:14 am
“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.”
Sort of a combination of the Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand Fallacy. Out of all the prognostications available, some had to be right, or nearly so. But, it is not necessarily predictive of future performance.