The Global Warming, Fossile Fuels and Peak Oil

[Mange]

In a Swedish morning paper, a professor in physics at the university of Uppsala claimed that the threat of global warming and the future increase in temperature as modeled by the IPCC are exaggerated as Peak Oil will occur between 2008 and 2018 and that the same is true for coal and natural gas (the professor claims that the extraction of coal in the U.S. has reached "Peak Coal" and that the same will happen in China soon as well). The point the professor was making was that the remaining fossil energy in the world (which according to the professor is 36 Zettajoule) isn't sufficient to drive the global warming and that the IPCC models must be questioned.

Now, I'm not qualified to judge this by any means, but it sounds too optimistic IMO. What arguments can be raised for or against this reasoning?

[Coyote]

So, basically, global warming will fade because we run out of gas to make global warming?

Does he take into account that it will take a looooong time for the effect to run its course?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He's seriously underestimating our coal reserves.

Also, he's ignoring the fact that if we desperate enough, we may not be able to make oil shale into oil cheaply enough for it to matter--but we'll be able to make it burn.

[Alferd Packer]

I think the proven coal reserves of the world is rather higher than oil, so that Peak Coal, even by the worst estimates, won't happen in the next ten years. This site suggests that as of 2002, there was enough coal to last 2 centuries. This is, of course, retardedly optimistic, but Peak Coal isn't going to occur within the next ten years. So, there's that.

The professor seems to assert, from what you've said, that the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming are going to decline in output sometime within the next decade, and thus the warming models are screwy. I don't think that's going to happen, simply because there's still enough coal in the ground to burn in increasing amounts past that point. Maybe it'll only be 30 years before Peak Coal, but until then, coal consumption will probably increase, thus upholding the IPCC estimates.

[Mange]

I managed to find the article translated into English here.

[J]

The problem is Siberia, specifically the nearly endless expanse of permafrost in Siberia. As it melts, which it's already doing, it releases large amounts of methane which a very potent greenhouse gas which then accelerates global warming which melts even more of the permafrost.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is Siberia, specifically the nearly endless expanse of permafrost in Siberia. As it melts, which it's already doing, it releases large amounts of methane which a very potent greenhouse gas which then accelerates global warming which melts even more of the permafrost.

Fortunately, methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas, compared to CO2.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Speaking on an (semi)-unrelated but important issue:

In the 1950s/1950s the Union Pacific used a bunch of gas-turbine locomotives which ran off of "Bunker C", the heaviest kind of crude oil in existence. They were designed to use a secondary fuel, however: Coal dust mixed with water in a combustible slurry.

Does anyone here have sufficient knowledge to say whether or not we could grind up oil shale and turn it into a slurry with water which would combust in the same way as the coal dust slurry? Because if that's the case then we'd have a very important alternate fuel to power gas-turbine locomotives and vehicles during the intermediate period when we have no gas but we're still electrifying the railroad network and expanding it.

[metavac]

The problem is Siberia, specifically the nearly endless expanse of permafrost in Siberia. As it melts, which it's already doing, it releases large amounts of methane which a very potent greenhouse gas which then accelerates global warming which melts even more of the permafrost.

Fortunately, methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas, compared to CO2.

And you've also got a cap on the order a hundred million metric tons of methane in the world's permafrost, anyway. Man-made processes release that much a year.

[J]

Does anyone here have sufficient knowledge to say whether or not we could grind up oil shale and turn it into a slurry with water which would combust in the same way as the coal dust slurry? Because if that's the case then we'd have a very important alternate fuel to power gas-turbine locomotives and vehicles during the intermediate period when we have no gas but we're still electrifying the railroad network and expanding it.

I'm not too sure on this one. While oil shale has been used in the past for power generation and heating, all the information I've come across points to some sort of boiler assembly for the combustion as opposed to a turbine. I suppose we could go back to using steam locomotives, fueled with oil shale instead of coal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Does anyone here have sufficient knowledge to say whether or not we could grind up oil shale and turn it into a slurry with water which would combust in the same way as the coal dust slurry? Because if that's the case then we'd have a very important alternate fuel to power gas-turbine locomotives and vehicles during the intermediate period when we have no gas but we're still electrifying the railroad network and expanding it.

I'm not too sure on this one. While oil shale has been used in the past for power generation and heating, all the information I've come across points to some sort of boiler assembly for the combustion as opposed to a turbine. I suppose we could go back to using steam locomotives, fueled with oil shale instead of coal.

Well, if oil shale can be used like coal, what would be the potential ways that it might not work the same as the oil dust slurry if it was ground up into a dust and slurried in the same fashion?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The main problem is dealing with extreme soot and erosion problems in the turbine, but we've got 45 years of technology on the experiments to find ways to deal with that, and if we can run a gas turbine on coal dust/oil shale dust then we've got some impressive potential resources.

It may make more sense to use traditional steam, though--depends on fuel economy--but I'm worried about the scale of the pollution. I'm just wondering if some experiments could be done with this.

Two of the UP's GTEL's are still around, I wonder if we could contact the owners--if the trained engineers on this board might be interested in contributing their expertise--and seeing about the possibility of forming an organization to use them as testbeds for applications of oil shale in powering gas turbines.

[aerius]

Well, if oil shale can be used like coal, what would be the potential ways that it might not work the same as the oil dust slurry if it was ground up into a dust and slurried in the same fashion?

One problem I can think of is that it'll be a lot more abrasive than coal dust and will likely destroy the turbine pretty quickly. When coal is burned it leaves a rather powdery ash which isn't too abrasive, oil shale slurry would be like crushed rock so you're basically sandblasting the turbine which can't be good for it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Gas turbine running coal dust? Reminds me of the Lippisch P13 ramjet fighter that was proposed to burn coal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unlike the P13, this actually existed, and racked up more than 10,000 miles in operational testing before they decided against it because of the blade erosion issues, which would obviously have to be solved to make it feasable now.

[haard]

Does anyone have any conflicting (recent) sources on Peak Coal? A lot of people say that it will last a long time, apart from the link Alferd Packer posted I've seen no figures.

Also, how important is it that we're running out of heigh-energy coal (if the prof is right)? I assume coal with less energy content will release proportionally less CO2?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Does anyone have any conflicting (recent) sources on Peak Coal? A lot of people say that it will last a long time, apart from the link Alferd Packer posted I've seen no figures.

Also, how important is it that we're running out of heigh-energy coal (if the prof is right)? I assume coal with less energy content will release proportionally less CO2?

It'll last 200 years at current levels, and you're right, most of that coal is pretty dirty, at least in the USA (but we're not running out, remotely; we've got huge amounts still in the Powder River Basin, et. al., that will take a long time to exhaust).

The problem is that if we start using coal to replace oil and deal with the consequences of peak oil, we're going to both accelerate global warming because it is dirtier, and we'll be using it up faster, so that the peak will approach more rapidly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

And you've also got a cap on the order a hundred million metric tons of methane in the world's permafrost, anyway. Man-made processes release that much a year.

It gets better. One of the reasons deep sea drilling has been a risky idea isn't just the cost, but the fact that huge pockets of methane hydrate ices exist under the seabed too. If one of those reservoir ruptures...

This report is also mentioned over at PO.com's forums, I think someone associated with this team posts there now and then. Fact is, I feel it's too late to stop climate change, nevermind reverse it. We'd need total lockdown on industry today, not a pathetic 50% cut in CO2 in the next half century. We're dangerously close to the 500 PPM limit as it is and all I read about now is scientists being disturbed by how fast Rhode Island sized pieces of ice are melting and breaking away all the time.

I think the proven coal reserves of the world is rather higher than oil, so that Peak Coal, even by the worst estimates, won't happen in the next ten years. This site suggests that as of 2002, there was enough coal to last 2 centuries. This is, of course, retardedly optimistic, but Peak Coal isn't going to occur within the next ten years. So, there's that.

The professor seems to assert, from what you've said, that the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming are going to decline in output sometime within the next decade, and thus the warming models are screwy. I don't think that's going to happen, simply because there's still enough coal in the ground to burn in increasing amounts past that point. Maybe it'll only be 30 years before Peak Coal, but until then, coal consumption will probably increase, thus upholding the IPCC estimates.

The current studies show that Peak Coal may occur in the next couple of decades if things grow steadily. If there's a massive rush for the stuff, then we're in real trouble. Coal reserves have often been as inflated, if not moreso, than oil and figures like 200 years or thereabouts always assume current production rates with no growth in demand, even excluding a 1% increase in population.

[Coyote]

The thing to remembner about Peak Coal is that a lot of countries that have no oil reserves (ie, Germany and France) do have coal reserves-- so comparing coal consumption to oil consumption can be an apples & oranges excersise. Countries drawing off the international oil trough will not be drawing off the international coal trough at the same rate-- if at all.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The majority of coal is consumed within the nation holding the deposits, since most all nations have at least some coal reserves. Coal is dirty, bulky and a general pain in the arse to transport, which is why only Australia and South Africa really go to any lengths to do so. The US has a lot of coal left, yet, that is all the crud with low energy content. The best stuff was burnt first. Economically, fossil fuels are topsy turvy. You pay less for the prime goods and more for the crap at the bottom. That's if you even have the energy to get at the last remaining scraps, since long before you physically run out, you'll be running unsustainable EROEI ratios to get what's left (why expend a barrel of oil to grab half a barrel of oil equivalent?).

China, despite having the largest coal consumtion on Earth and second largest deposits, started importing the stuff this year. This from a nation building a new coal fired powerplant every fortnight on average, much to the chagrin of the people who value some quality of life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the extraction of oil shale and its burning as a coal alternative (it's useless trying to refine it into oil) is economically viable, that gives us a bit more breathing room. Unfortunately that also potentially makes the global warming problem worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hmm, apparently several powerplants operating on the BFB/CFB process are actually using oil shale today as a fuel instead of coal. If we can mate proposed "clean coal" technologies with oil shale (the nice thing is 72% of the reserves in the USA, which are 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, are owned by the federal government, so no price dicking here) we can at least delay the loss of fossil fuel energy entirely for several additional decades, and keep the military running, as you can extract oil from, it's just.. Difficult.

The problem here is doing this in a manner which doesn't make global warming worse, which means investing very heavily in clean coal in a period when building big sooty cheap old-fashioned systems is going to be far more energy efficient and quite tempting to do.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If the extraction of oil shale and its burning as a coal alternative (it's useless trying to refine it into oil) is economically viable, that gives us a bit more breathing room. Unfortunately that also potentially makes the global warming problem worse.

It's been touted as economically viable in the near future since 1946. The fact is, the Law of Receding Horizons, as it were, dictates that it will never attain the profitability that crude oil has today. And even if it did, you're looking at maybe 3-5 mbpd in another decade or two, tops. That's not even half of what the US uses today daily.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Lithium Hydride for a 300-mile-range car

Hydrogen Breakthrough Could Open The Road To Carbon-free Cars

Science Daily — A new breakthrough in hydrogen storage technology could remove a key barrier to widespread uptake of non-polluting cars that produce no carbon dioxide emissions.

[img=left]http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007 ... 113841.jpg[/img]The future in store: hydrogen atoms can be absorbed effectively into the new storage material -- hydrogen (H) atoms are shown in green, lithium (Li) atoms in dark grey, nitrogen (N) atoms in blue and boron (B) atoms are in grey and inside the pyramids. (Credit: Image courtesy of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council)



























UK scientists have developed a compound of the element lithium which may make it practical to store enough hydrogen on-board fuel-cell-powered cars to enable them to drive over 300 miles before refuelling. Achieving this driving range is considered essential if a mass market for fuel cell cars is to develop in future years, but has not been possible using current hydrogen storage technologies.

Fuel cells produce carbon-free electricity by harnessing electrochemical reactions between hydrogen and oxygen. However, today's prototype and demonstration fuel-cell-powered cars only have a range of around 200 miles. To achieve a 300 mile driving range, an on-board space the size of a double-decker bus would be needed to store hydrogen gas at standard temperature and pressure, while storing it as a compressed gas in cylinders or as a liquid in storage tanks would not be practical due to the weight and size implications.

The UK-SHEC research has therefore focused on a different approach which could enable hydrogen to be stored at a much higher density and within acceptable weight limits. The option involves a well-established process called 'chemisorption', in which atoms of a gas are absorbed into the crystal structure of a solid-state material and then released when needed.

The team has tested thousands of solid-state compounds in search of a light, cheap, readily available material which would enable the absorption/desorption process to take place rapidly and safely at typical fuel cell operating temperatures. They have now produced a variety of lithium hydride (specifically Li4BN3H10) that could offer the right blend of properties. Development work is now needed to further investigate the potential of this powder.

"This could be a major step towards the breakthrough that the fuel cell industry and the transport sector have waited for," says UK-SHEC's Project Co-ordinator Professor Peter Edwards of the University of Oxford. "It's due to SUPERGEN's vision of combining many of the leading groups in the UK to tackle this, arguably the biggest challenge for the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This work could make a key contribution to helping fuel cell cars become viable for mass-manufacture within around 10 years."

Fuel cells are a key technology which could assist the emergence of a 'hydrogen energy economy' that uses hydrogen, rather than carbon-based fossil fuels, as its main energy carrier. They offer particular potential in the transport sector, which is a major source of the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion that are the main contributor to climate change. An average new petrol-fuelled car currently produces over 3 tonnes of CO2 a year.

A major report in 2004 concluded that using hydrogen in vehicles could, on its own, enable the UK to meet its Kyoto targets for CO2 reductions ('A Strategic Framework for Hydrogen Energy', published by Etech, Element Energy and Eoin Lees Energy).

These findings have been achieved by a team from the Universities of Birmingham and Oxford and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, under the auspices of the UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium (UK-SHEC). UK-SHEC is funded by the SUPERGEN (Sustainable Power Generation and Supply) initiative managed and led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

[Broomstick]

I've heard estimates ranging from 100 to 300 years for US coal reserves. But do keep in mind that that is strictly for US needs. It's certainly not enough for the entire world to run on for that long.

It's deceptively plentiful - driving through Appalacian you see exposed coal seams along the roads. There have been backyard mines for centuries for small-scale cottage industries. Thing is, for modern industry a lot of it just isn't economically extractable.

As for climate change -- well, weather is a very inexact science. We can make all sorts of models, but take them all with a grain of salt because we are basically making guesses about systems we don't understand. Likewise this Peak Oil thing - I first heard we were going to hit Peak Oil in the late 1970's. It's not impossible we're on top of it, but don't believe everything you hear. Some people have an agenda to push and do so by crying DOOM!

Really, the WORST problem is not energy generation or industry or a lot of other things, it's that there are too damn many people. Cut the human population in half and a lot of problems become much less serious. Probelm is, of course, that no one wants to be in the half eliminated.