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.
RE: James F. Evans: (November 16, 2011 at 9:05 am)
“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).”
I think the Energy Information Administration is really dropping the ball by not providing authoritative summary data for making charts like this. I have to depend on David Archibald’s reputation as a petroleum expert for assuming this chart is essentially correct. I note that the ‘past discovery’ curve shows diminishing minima around 1976, 1986, and 1996 and diminishing peaks around 1980, 1990, and 2000 — perhaps due to some decadal reporting process. I assume that there was another peak around 2009-2010.
The important point, however, is that the current production/consumption rate has not been supported by new discoveries since 1980. The simplest explanation for this is that we are running out of new oil to find.
According to Kirk Sorensen, there is no way wind and solar power can replace our petroleum resource, “not even close,” and the current nuclear energy technology is based on a uranium fuel that is as rare as platinum.
Spector says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:54 am
U235 is the match that Nature provided to humanity to start the nuclear era. Currently used U235-burning light water reactors are burning through that match without lighting the fire. U235 is only 0.0014% of the nuclear fuel available to us. On top of that, not reprocessing the waste from those reactors is like living in cities before the invention of sewage. We are just sitting in our own filth.
I had structured this post to determine what the CO2 content of the atmosphere would peak at and to see how fast it would be absorbed by the oceans. There is one big task remaining which is to determine the onset conditions of the next glaciation.
RE: I had structured this post to determine what the CO2 content of the atmosphere would peak at and to see how fast it would be absorbed by the oceans. There is one big task remaining which is to determine the onset conditions of the next glaciation.
I’m even more pessimistic than you are. I believe we are at the peak of population and demand (for all energy) is now or nearly so. Ocean absorption ought to become the prime (downward) mover of concentration in the atmosphere within the lifetimes of many currently alive (assuming those lifetimes are not shortened by war or starvation).
RE: David Archibald: (November 16, 2011 at 1:41 pm)
“On top of that, not reprocessing the waste from those reactors is like living in cities before the invention of sewage. We are just sitting in our own filth.”
Kirk Sorensen says his proposed continuously cycling Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors will consume almost all of their dangerous transuranic wastes. (plutonium, etc.) He says existing stocks of transuranic wastes can also be merged into the LFTR reaction pot and destroyed.
Sorensen distinguishes between three types of reaction products: short-lived products that are very radioactive but are gone in a short time; moderate-lived products, like plutonium, that can remain dangerous for a million years or more; and long-lived products that only emit radiation at background levels.
As far as I know, thorium is the only potential energy source that is *known* to be so abundant that it might sustain and support our current energy use beyond the projected life of the planet.
I think his two-hour promotional video compilation above (November 14, 2011 at 3:20 am) is both educational and entertaining.
RE: David Archibald: (November 16, 2011 at 1:41 pm)
“I had structured this post to determine what the CO2 content of the atmosphere would peak at and to see how fast it would be absorbed by the oceans. There is one big task remaining which is to determine the onset conditions of the next glaciation.”
It would appear that the controversial nature of Figure 1 has sparked most of the comments here, including mine. There are those, perhaps not without some justification, who are highly suspicious of anyone, especially those associated with the petroleum industry or the ‘tabloid’ press, suggesting that our petroleum supply is limited. They may view this as part of a scam to raise prices or an alarmist appeal to sell books, papers or attract viewers — just another inconvenient ‘truth.’
I do not profess to know what the real limitations are, but it does look like we are long past the peak new oil discovery period. I have not seen similar data for peak new coal or new natural gas. As plotted, it looks like your chart shows that man will not be able to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere (from 280 PPM) by burning the Earth’s entrained hydrocarbon fuels. I would guess, however, that there could be enough unknowns here to put a one hundred year uncertainty band around the ‘peak CO2’ date.
If we transition to manufactured fuels, we might want to extract the carbon from the bottom of the sea to keep CO2 levels from falling in the atmosphere.
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Peak Oil) (Video)
Oil: Never Cry Wolf—Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over (PDF)
(Science, Volume 304, Number 5674, pp. 1114-1115, May 2004)
– Leonardo Maugeri
“A new tide of oil doomsters is once again heralding the end of the Oil Era. The so-called Hubbert model, which they use, considers geology a faith more than a dynamic science influenced by many factors. Hydrocarbon reserves are finite–of this there is no doubt. And yet, contrary to the Hubbertians’ claims, no one knows just how finite they are. More than geology, technology and economics dominate the evolution of reserves. The problem with the oil doomsters’ thesis, according to the policy forum by Maugeri, is that geology is not destiny, but rather only a part of a much more complex picture that does not indicate the world is running out of oil.”
Peak Oil and other threatening peaks—Chimeras without substance (PDF)
(Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 11, pp. 6566-6569, November 2010)
– Marian Radetzki
“The Peak Oil movement has widely spread its message about an impending peak in global oil production, caused by an inadequate resource base. On closer scrutiny, the underlying analysis is inconsistent, void of a theoretical foundation and without support in empirical observations. Global oil resources are huge and expanding, and pose no threat to continuing output growth within an extended time horizon. In contrast, temporary or prolonged supply crunches are indeed plausible, even likely, on account of growing resource nationalism denying access to efficient exploitation of the existing resource wealth.”
RE: Poptech: (November 16, 2011 at 8:04 pm)
“Hydrocarbon reserves are finite–of this there is no doubt. And yet, contrary to the Hubbertians’ claims, no one knows just how finite they are. More than geology, technology and economics dominate the evolution of reserves.”
I base my conclusions on the progressively declining discoveries of new oil supplies, which have not matched the oil extraction rate since 1980. The simplest explanation for this is that we are running out of new oil to find. I take that as a fair warning that we should be spending a small part of our treasure to develop a more sustainable alternative energy source.
Spector says:
November 17, 2011 at 5:25 am
“we should be spending a small part of our treasure to develop a more sustainable alternative energy source”
But it isn’t “our treasure” though is it. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what you surmise, there is no communal “treasure”. All “money” represents work and somebodies effort, and people cannot simply be taxed in order to fulfil the aspirations of some few who pontificate on things that “should be” or “ought to be” done. If and when oil and gas and coal, and whatever else become too expensive for the market, then the market will move on to something else. When these fuels become too expensive in terms of effort to extract, their extraction will decline. They will probably never all be extracted to to exhaustion, and so will never in fact run out as such.
Many other fuels have yet to be exploited and others have yet to be discovered. Meantime, Oil, Gas, and Coal are convenient and relatively inexpensive, and so they shall continue to be used, whatever the various pontificators, green advocates, or anyone else says about that. When a person discovers a less expensive or less arduous to extract fuel source then humans will naturally start to use that instead. Many would argue that such sources already exist, but are being withheld deliberately because of vested interests. This is not something that anyone alive on the planet today needs to worry about though, or even anybody will need to worry about for at least 500, or perhaps 1000 years. Remember that just 100 years ago people still travelled about mostly on horses and until the 19th century, there wasn’t even any practical use for electric power.
Have faith in the ingenuity of the combined inventiveness of billions of Human Brains.
RE: Axel: (November 17, 2011 at 6:59 am)
“Have faith in the ingenuity of the combined inventiveness of billions of Human Brains.”
Actually, I agree with most of what you have said. I have seen that some people are investigating at least one promising alternative that does not involve the eventual return to a nineteenth century population and lifestyle. Of course, there are those who view that return as the only way to save the Earth from excessive human impact.
It appears that we have wasted public money on wind and solar power schemes even though we have never been able to satisfy more than about one percent of our energy requirements that way. I think that money would have been better spent on something that did look like in could handle the load and would not poison the environment.
There is another front on the peak oil issue. Former Canadian CIBC chief economist Jeff Rubin has been saying that we are facing ever-increasing competition from China and India. When someone at the top of their growing middle class starts to drive a car, he may be able to afford a price increase that will push someone in America back on the bus. Rubin has been telling his fellow Canadians that Asia is most likely to be the primary customer for their petroleum product.
Just to be fair, here is a reference to an article I just found that is highly critical of Jeff Rubin. He seems to have a regular column in The Globe and Mail, “a nationally distributed Canadian newspaper, based in Toronto,” and is featured in a number of You Tube ‘Peak Oil’ presentations:
THE NATIONAL POST
FULL COMMENT
Dan Gardner: Jeff Rubin is a guru you shouldn’t listen to
Dan Gardner Dec 15, 2010 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 14, 2010 5:59 PM ET
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/15/dan-gardner-jeff-rubin-is-a-guru-you-shouldnt-listen-to/
“Dan Gardner is a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen.”
According to the Wikipedia, “The National Post is a Canadian English-language national newspaper based in Don Mills, a district of Toronto. The paper is owned by Postmedia Network Inc.”
Re:jr Wakefield , I do understand the geology of the Bakken and resource econ. The only thing trickling associated with the Bakken is the transport capacity meanwhile the investment continues to flow in from both domestic and international sources from those who bet big with real money and not words.
Scrolling down to the fuscia coloured chart @ur momisugly http://trendlines.ca/free/climatechange/#co2 one can see my ongoing study of the fossil fuel contribution to co2 emissions varies somewhat from David Archibald: 411ppm in 2025
Promoters of the myth of imminent Peak Oil (McPeaksters) have made the same tired annual declarations since 1989 and like a broken clock, some time they can say with glee they were right all along! Geologic Peak would normally occur @ur momisugly 105 Mbd, but current deterioration of growth rates in consumption make it rather clear this will be truncated (100 Mbd). PEAK Demand will be induced by crude prices surpassing $208 in 2029.
The forcing for PEAK Demand is triple digit oil prices but ridiculous predictions of $225 by next year by neophytes like Jeff Rubin are outrageous. Along with James Hamilton and Steven Kopits, Jeff Rubin belongs to a fringe element that do not understand the concept of demand destruction wrt petroleum prices nor its price components. Hence their failure to foresee the 2008 episode was a mere spike and why there was no world Recession when oil rose above $86/barrel last year.
http://www.trendlines.ca/free/peakoil