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.
According to one estimate, (T. Boon Pickens) we are now extracting oil from the Earth at a rate of 85 million barrels a day. If we go back in time, say 85 million years–just before the end of the Cretaceous period, the Earth only needs to be able to produce about one barrel of biotic or abiotic oil a day since then to give us the supply that we are now depleting in a single year, or produce 100 barrels a day to give us a 100 year supply.
Given the geologic ages that the Earth has had to build up the supply that we are now rapidly depleting, there is no reason to expect that this resource is being renewed, whether it is biotic or abiotic, at the rate we need to use it. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that we might one day discover a vast underground ocean of petroleum. The only real inexhaustible source of energy of which I have been made aware of is thorium nuclear.
Another Peak Oil post. Sigh.
Production curves are totally tied to the technological pattern under use. This is the flawed assumption.
You could make the same type of curve for a man’s ability to produce food. Until he gets a cow. Or a tractor. Or moves to better farmland. Or gets new seed.
This whole thing reminds me of the “in five years half our landfills will be closed.” fallacy.
Austin says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Another Peak Oil post. Sigh.
Production curves are totally tied to the technological pattern under use. This is the flawed assumption.
You could make the same type of curve for a man’s ability to produce food. Until he gets a cow. Or a tractor. Or moves to better farmland. Or gets new seed.
This whole thing reminds me of the “in five years half our landfills will be closed.” fallacy.
———
Completely bad analogy. Oil production is not just technology. Geology plays the primary role. Oil is not a pool in a void in the rocks. The rock is the matrix the oil is in, like a sponge. The ability to extract oil depends on the porosity of the rock, the viscosity of the oil, the pressure of underlying water table, depth, disolved gases, disolved metals, and other factors. Each oil deposit has a fixed amount of oil in it. Technology only allows for a little more to be removed. This happened at Cantarell, nitrogen injection boosted production. But all that does is mean the drop off of the depletion rate is steeper than if no technology was used. Hence the 15% decline at Cantarel now.
Do you dispute that oil fields go into terminal decline?
Spector says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:15 pm
According to one estimate, (T. Boon Pickens) we are now extracting oil from the Earth at a rate of 85 million barrels a day. If we go back in time, say 85 million years–just before the end of the Cretaceous period, the Earth only needs to be able to produce about one barrel of biotic or abiotic oil a day since then to give us the supply that we are now depleting in a single year, or produce 100 barrels a day to give us a 100 year supply.
Given the geologic ages that the Earth has had to build up the supply that we are now rapidly depleting, there is no reason to expect that this resource is being renewed, whether it is biotic or abiotic, at the rate we need to use it. As far as I know, there is no reason to think that we might one day discover a vast underground ocean of petroleum. The only real inexhaustible source of energy of which I have been made aware of is thorium nuclear.
—–
The vast majority of oil deposits come from a few narrow windows from the geological past, mostly from periods of great marine diversity. The oldest being some 400myo, while the youngest is about 30myo. Subsequent geology will depend on what the marine deposits become as an “oil” field.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
November 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm
‘Peak oil’ is a myth.
When theorized by Hubbert in 1956, peak oil was valid. It is valid today. It will be valid for decades to come, because new discoveries are keeping up with increasing demand. Will it be valid next millenium? Who knows, and who cares!
———-
Discoveries are not even close to keeping up. We consume some 5 barrels for every 2 found today. http://planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html
RE: Gail Combs: (November 14, 2011 at 4:45 am)
“More on Thorium Nuclear, probably our best bet at least short term if it does not get NIMBYed.” [not in my backyard]
Due to its small footprint, I would expect this to be less of a problem than with any standard power plant. But most Green Earth people, especially after Fukushima, have an inherent objection to nuclear power of any form because it is associated with war, nuclear waste, and because it is not ‘natural.’ Given the demonstrations against the Canadian pipeline, the President must assume that any attempt by the Government to foster Thorium Nuclear development to be opposed by mass demonstrations. I doubt if any of the Republican candidates are now prepared to speak on this issue.
In industry, I expect that the primary opposition would be based on non-compatibility with existing methodology. That is the same reason that the IBM compatible personal computer was declared to be the one and only standard business computer, even though there were other personal computer architectures extant with arguably better graphical operating systems.
A billion barrels here and a billion barrels there and pretty soon you have the makings of a model revision forced on govt and academics by the pace of new industry announcements with real data. See for example the new estimate from Anadarko on the third shale oil reserve to follow the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale cases. With as many as ten of these rewrites to oil reserve history in only a few years in the US along, you could easily get to 200 billion new reserves excluding the middle east. Reality is moving much faster than perception these days and the armchair energy experts are even more ill equipped than usual.
Re: jrwakefield you link to an oil drum posted article questioning the economics of shale gas plays that is itself not representative of the universe of evidence to the contrary. In fact the only impediment to shale gas at present is the collapse in prices caused by what?…..,,yes shale gas discoveries and ramping of production. This overshoot of production in resource markets is a common characteristic of the sector and occurs in many commodities and markets. In the liquids market the sector is turning quickly toward shale plays here there and everywhere and it will ramp even faster than the overshoot of natural gas because of the value difference and reduced drilling tech costs compared to the natural gas case that included refinement of the techniques as they went. That refinement process on drilling time and reduced support equipment is far enough along now to move faster than the natural gas case. Take heart that you are not alone in being out of date, even the presentations of CEOs from conventional oil drillers are being revamped while they play catchup on land positions!
Re Spector, your concerns about rapidly depleting oil that took millions of years to produce is a common mistake given the fact that it has been four since we learned how to economically produce oil from the source rocks instead of chasing where oil moved with high-risk drilling for lucrative reservoirs in trap locations. Also keep in mind that the Hubbert model and those that came after it are based on the distribution of success rates and production profiles of those vertical drill holes and none from the new horizontal variety in source rocks with very different success rates. Get ready for the next rewrite of oil history, it’s coming.
“Because dumping spent nuke fuel on the Moon was an essential plot element of Space: 1999, which some find to be a bold and largely-realistic visage of human space exploration, highlighting mankind’s strengths in the face of cosmic adversity, and a preferable “everyone working together” (*cough*communist*cough*) society.”
That has been a problem with much of Space- it’s being mostly regarded as government program. As result there hasn’t much vision portraying a non-communistic/socialistic future.
I think socialism would always fail in regards to opening the space frontier,
It possible that communist China will strangely be needed to develop markets in space- just Russia put first private tourist into space.
RE: Resourceguy: (November 14, 2011 at 8:03 pm)
“Spector, your concerns about rapidly depleting oil that took millions of years to produce is a common mistake given the fact that it has been four since we learned how to economically produce oil from the source rocks instead of chasing where oil moved with high-risk drilling for lucrative reservoirs in trap locations. “
I am unaware of any such method depending on what you mean by ‘source rocks.’ In a response to a question about using his reactors to assist in the harvesting of the oil sands, Kirk Sorenson appears to be claiming, in effect, that energy from his LFTR reactors will be so cheap (add grains of salt) that he will be able manufacture transportation energy storage fluids such as methanol, dimethyl ether, and ammonia at less cost than today’s equivalent refined products derived from petroleum pumped directly out of the ground.
RE: jrwakefield: (November 14, 2011 at 2:47 pm)
“Since the 1970′s, we have A) by law, put a large portion of unexplored regions out of reach and B) been able to get oil cheaper from elsewhere.”
I am sure that statement is substantially correct as it stands, but I was wondering how large this area is in proportion to that area already explored and exploited. In a larger sense, it does not matter if we hard-limit on energy extraction from the Earth next year, next decade, next century, or next millennium. It will happen and mankind should be ready for it. If we are there now, we should be prepared to see a zero-growth or slowly declining economy as the best that might be expected–unless we find an alternative energy source.
Leif .. by 1862 villages of barrel makers had sprung up in oil producing regions making barrels specifically for oil production. The shortage of whiskey barrels refers to Drake’s first attempts to sell oil in the late 1850’s.
“Drake had the good fortune of locating his well in a shallow oil belt, and one with Penn Grade crude that could be refined with the limited technology available at the time. A pitcher pump, like those found at kitchen sinks, brought up the oil in the Drake Well and splashed it into a washtub, before it was transferred to whiskey barrels. The initial production of 10 to 35 barrels a day nearly doubled the world’s output of oil. Many new cooperage businesses sprang up around Titusville when the supply of barrels ran out. Within days of Drake’s success, Kier was buying the oil and was paying 60 cents per gallon delivered. Another Pittsburgh refiner, W. Mackeown, also made a deal to buy Drake Well oil. By the end of 1859, the two refiners had purchased over $8800 of oil from the well. Seneca Oil Company had paid $5000 for the 100 acres of land where it was sited.”
Resourceguy says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:13 pm
A billion barrels here and a billion barrels there and pretty soon you have the makings of a model revision forced on govt and academics by the pace of new industry announcements with real data. See for example the new estimate from Anadarko on the third shale oil reserve to follow the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale cases.
——–
Read up about the geology of the Bakken. Estimates are that we will not recover more than 1% of what’s in the ground. You are still making the same mistake. Peak oil is not about what’s in the ground. It’s about how fast it can be extracted. Bakken will always be a trickle. If you understand it’s geology you will understand why.
Resourceguy says:
November 14, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Re: jrwakefield you link to an oil drum posted article questioning the economics of shale gas plays that is itself not representative of the universe of evidence to the contrary. In fact the only impediment to shale gas at present is the collapse in prices caused by what?…..,,yes shale gas discoveries and ramping of production. This overshoot of production in resource markets is a common characteristic of the sector and occurs in many commodities and markets. In the liquids market the sector is turning quickly toward shale plays here there and everywhere and it will ramp even faster than the overshoot of natural gas because of the value difference and reduced drilling tech costs compared to the natural gas case that included refinement of the techniques as they went. That refinement process on drilling time and reduced support equipment is far enough along now to move faster than the natural gas case. Take heart that you are not alone in being out of date, even the presentations of CEOs from conventional oil drillers are being revamped while they play catchup on land positions!
====
You miss the point of the article. Shale gas has high depletion rates, this is seen around the world. The main reason for the fall of prices for NG is the recession, less NG being consumed, lowers the price. The glut is not just because there is more supply, but also less demand. It won’t last as convensional sources of NG continue to deplete.
You are still making the same mistake. Peak oil is not about what’s in the ground, but how fast it can be extracted. Oil shale will not have the same flow rates as convensional fields, hence will not be able to conpensate for depletion from those aging fields, and the ERoEI will be much lower from shale oil. The Alberat Oil Sands has an ERoEI of a mere 6:1. An oil field is not considered energy profitable (besides monitary) below 4:1.
“The Oil Drum” is to Peak Oil as “Real Climate” is to Thermogeddon
jrwakefield is to the OD as gavin is to RC.
Here be the proved reserves (notice the year on year increases – especially 2003)
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6&cid=ww,&syid=1980&eyid=2011&unit=BB
Here the consumption (World total is bottom line)
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=1980&eyid=2010&unit=TBPD
Note some fluctuation around the mean over the last couple of years. Still well below projections made years ago 😉
3 trillion tons of coal off Norway. Mongolia/China. Orinoco. Alice Springs. All game changers with more to come if history show us anything. A paradigm shift is under way even if environmentalists (and eschatologists) deny it and fight to prevent it.
I just wonder what sorts of plants and animals used to be on Titan, to form all that methane.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
Peabody coal…..shipping to China
Powder River Basin coal has a high water content and an associated low BTU/lb content. 8,500 BTU’s/lb compared to 13,000 BTU’s/lb for Central Appalachian or Australian coal. It is also 1,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Coal Freight rates run at about 3 cents/ton mile.
The ocean freight rates from the west coast of the US to China are an addition $35/ton.
http://www.coalspot.com/news-detail.php?nid=1243
So to get $15/ton coal from Wyoming to China we have to add $30/ton for the rail transportation and another $35/ton for the boat for a grand total of $80/ton.
$80 for 17 MMBtu(8,500 x 2000) = $4.70/MMBtu.
The proposed coal port was going to have a capacity between 5 million and 50 million tons per year depending on who you chose to believe. China consumes in excess of 3 Billion tons per year.
1 million BTU’s produces 102 KWh (1,000,000/3412 * 35% efficiency)
So 1,000 Megawatt coal fired plant requires 9,800 Million Btu’s per hour, it’s hourly fuel cost using imported Wyoming coal would be $4.70 * 9,800 = $46,000/hour. There are 8,760 hours in a year. for an annual fuel bill of $402 million.
A Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor built in China costs about $3 billion. The fuel cost for a nuclear power plant for a year costs about $40 million.
There is a reason the Chinese have ‘shovel in the ground’ on 26 nuclear reactors with another 25 planned. They are pretty handy when it comes to ‘doing the math’.
There is also a reason why they don’t have shovel in the ground on 500 nuclear reactors. They don’t currently have the professional expertise to safely manage more then what they are currently constructing.
They just contracted with ‘Exelon Nuclear’, one of the largest US Nuclear Plant operators for assistance in training.
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2011/11/1541202075/exelon-nuclear-partners-signs-contract-with-cnnc-nuclear-power-company-ltd.html
The only people that believe the Chinese will be importing ‘massive quantities’ of US Coal are the investers in Peabody Coal and Climate Change advocates. Every-time Climate Change advocates blather on about how much coal Peabody Coal is going to export to China various investors end up thinking how much money that Peabody Coal will make.
Peabody coal will make money exporting coal to China…until the Chinese get their act together on their nuclear build-out. If you believe the Chinese will take 20 years then invest in Peabody Coal. If you believe the Chinese will get their act together in the next 5 years Peabody Coal is a poor investment.
JRWakefield is a professional “peak” oil advocate.
That’s his advocation, it may even be his vocation, he goes to “peak” oil conferences — the whole nine yards.
On his own blog, if you post facts & evidence which contradicts his agenda, he will delete your post.
That’s the hallmark of a “controlled subject” the individual has an agenda to promote.
The following link is a good summary of facts & evidence supporting the existence of abiotic hydrocarbons in the Earth’s crust:
Inorganic Origin of Petroleum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55489859/Inorganic-Petroleum-Origin
RE: Jon: (November 15, 2011 at 6:10 am)
“Leif .. by 1862 villages of barrel makers had sprung up in oil producing regions making barrels specifically for oil production. The shortage of whiskey barrels refers to Drake’s first attempts to sell oil in the late 1850′s.”
And Sir Francis Drake has been credited with contributing to the doom of the Spanish Armada by destroying their stock of barrel staves in an action off the Cape of St. Vincent, May 21 — June 18, in 1587.
“If, when the Armada finally sailed, its water butts proved to be leaky and foul, if much food spoiled because of green barrel staves and ill-made casks, the smoke which hung over Sagres was to blame.”
The Armada
Garrett Mattingly
Whether or not the depicted curves are really metrics having anything to do with supply, these curves are relevant as follows. They depict the likely price of fossil fuels. How can that be? Simply put, the price of these commodities serve as a leading indicator of population and hence demand. Population and demand will peak very soon, relatively speaking, no later than 2040 by my own conservative reckoning. If the economic collapse continues the peak will be even earlier, even earlier yet if the economic difficulties beget world war. The next world war will be far less fossil fuel intensive than the last one as it will be rocket powered. In any case, given the inevitable peak then decline in population, there is no way that current commodity prices can hold. Talk about a bubble!
So then at least one elephant is in the living room.
We cannot afford to be wasting 1/3 rd of all this energy by engaging
in fatuous “carbon sequestration schemes”. In fact any such schemes
could be said to be Criminally irresponsible. Not only do they waste
1/3 rd or this finite source of fuel, but they also would contribe to
the “zero hour” of below 150 ppm of carbon dioxide coming sooner.
Such advocates of sequestration schemes ought to be tried in a
Court of Law for Crimes against Humanity, as well as Fraud.
Advocates like Stuart Haszeldine of Edinburgh University for instance.
BooHoo, weeps “professor” Hazeldine, the dirty British Government
have closed down my pet CCS Project at Longannet in Scotland…..
“the British government has set back the development of one
of the most promising weapons in the war on climate change.”
See just one of the websites of this apologist for Carbon Witchcraft ….
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/research/sccs/
I saw some reports on the UKIP Scotland web-blog
about the so called “professor” Haszeldine, and they
were none too complimentary.
Longannet Carbon Capture & Storage Debacle
http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/longannet-carbon-capture-storage-debacle/
Longannet carbon capture scheme scrapped !
http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/longannet-carbon-capture-scheme-scrapped/
Seems like not every political Party in Scotland believes the Lies & Deceit.
More from Lord Monckton at the Fraudulent Climate Website also
please do click the link at the name Axel above, once you looked
at the ukipscotland blog stories.
RE: SteveSadlov: (November 15, 2011 at 12:44 pm)
“In any case, given the inevitable peak then decline in population, there is no way that current commodity prices can hold. Talk about a bubble!”
I believe that a relentless decline of living standards and population is only inevitable if some insurmountable technical problem or social bias prevents a transition to thorium nuclear power generation. As far as I can tell, there is no other long term, sustainable option.
It appears that we are using stored chemical energy in the Earth at a rate, which, in the case of petroleum, is now double the rate we are finding more. That is the real signal that the well is running dry.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/archibald_oildown_fig3.png
Spector: The portion of the schematic you linked covering future oil production is seven, going on eight years old. It is out of date and proved to be false. Production over that time span (2004 to 2011) slowly has risen (although not by much).
Also the person who prepared that forecast is Collin Campbell, a well known “peak” oil promotor.