Peak Oil, peak Gas Peak Coal.

[Stuart Mackey]

I especially love the "peak coal" idea, here, since there are more recoverable reserves of coal in England alone, right now, than have been consumed in the entire history of the Earth

Quite, if we burn all the fossile fuels available to us we are likely going to have far bigger problems than running out of them.

btw isn't it possible to convert coal into liquid fuel? Germany did so on a grande scale during WWII IIRC.

Fischer-Trosch process. And peak coal is ludicrous--the world has enough for at least 120 years even with continuing increases in consumption, and more likely 250 years. The problem is that a lot of that coal is dirty brown coal which will release much more pollutants in the atmosphere for the amount of energy produced, and costs more to extract for its energy yield, meaning a smaller net gain in energy.

Peak gas, on the other hand, is certainly going to happen within the next 75 years.

And what happens after 250 years?

[Admiral Valdemar]

So, if you expect oil to peak by 2010, then you'd expect energy production in 2012 to be energy production in 2008 (bell curve, look at this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... o_2005.png)

It's not that simple. Firstly, we can't call peak until it's in the rear-view mirror; it is close though. Not 2015-40 as some energy analysts and organisations would have told you until recently.

Secondly, a perfect bell curve is by no means the only way it can play out. Hubbert Linearisation doesn't take into account things like export land declines, geo-political tension or other surprise events that may or may not mitigate/exacerbate the situation. We, again, have scenarios, so I'll find some more up-to-date ones and give you an idea.

GDP isn't a measure of work though.

But it is a measure of production. I think we can all agree that for any unit of energy, you can get only so much work done with it to produce goods to fuel economic growth. It is simplistic to say energy declining by such and such, will mean the economy goes down by this much. But it is a good indicator for baselines to allow for planning.

How are we supposed to know if you're right if it isn't going to be cut and dry? Jehovah's Witness has been saying that the world is about to end for years, but no one can ever say "No, you're wrong", because they never make it cut and dry.

I'm just asking for a specific, cut and dry number, so we can unambiguously go back and say if you were right or not.

I take it you also don't accept climate change. I'm sorry I can't give you an exact date. This is reality, not a computer game. What you ask of me impossible, and as we see with well understood climatological models, we can still be way off even with the best supercomputers. The actual evidence seen now, however, shows a worsening situation beyond the predictions most favoured.

[Sea Skimmer]

And what happens after 250 years?

We hopefully tap the effectively unlimited supply of uranium and thorium in the world? Or just maybe that might be long enough to make fusion power work. Really by then we should be building nothing but big industrial complexes which use nuclear power to make electricity and hydrogen, with the waste heat going into freshwater production. The reactors would run breeder cycles so we can have a constant net gain of fuel for thousands of years (or is it millions of years that will work for? I cant recall)

We could do this today; 250 years is certainly enough time to make it happen.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If we're still using coal in nearly three centuries, then we're pretty fucking stupid. We should be on alternatives long before then, assuming we haven't put that radioactive material to better use via ICBM.

As for peak coal, I sincerely doubt 150 years of constant growth.

[Surlethe]

Secondly, a perfect bell curve is by no means the only way it can play out. Hubbert Linearisation doesn't take into account things like export land declines, geo-political tension or other surprise events that may or may not mitigate/exacerbate the situation. We, again, have scenarios, so I'll find some more up-to-date ones and give you an idea.

Here's an interesting question. Has OPEC actually helped us? World crude production follows a pretty decent bell curve until the cartel is set up, and then it increases more slowly. Did they put the peak off?

[Stuart Mackey]

And what happens after 250 years?

We hopefully tap the effectively unlimited supply of uranium and thorium in the world? Or just maybe that might be long enough to make fusion power work. Really by then we should be building nothing but big industrial complexes which use nuclear power to make electricity and hydrogen, with the waste heat going into freshwater production. The reactors would run breeder cycles so we can have a constant net gain of fuel for thousands of years (or is it millions of years that will work for? I cant recall)

We could do this today; 250 years is certainly enough time to make it happen.

Indeed, just have to get past this wee bump in the road.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Here's an interesting question. Has OPEC actually helped us? World crude production follows a pretty decent bell curve until the cartel is set up, and then it increases more slowly. Did they put the peak off?

Up until recently, it does seem that their limiting of production has allowed us to not squander too much energy too early. On the other hand, over the last few years, since around 2004, the quota policy has fallen apart, and many members are either pumping full pelt, or trying to limit how much they pump for their own reasons. And then you get the likes of Indonesia, who dropped out of the group recently as they saw their exports collapse, much like the North Sea (~50% decline rates).

[Stuart Mackey]

If we're still using coal in nearly three centuries, then we're pretty fucking stupid. We should be on alternatives long before then, assuming we haven't put that radioactive material to better use via ICBM.

As for peak coal, I sincerely doubt 150 years of constant growth.

I figure for my country, coal to fuel is the stop gap that can keep us going for nigh on 300 or more years if our politicians are smart enough to invest in it (and carbon capture tech). Of course the use rate diminishes if and when we wean ourselves off oil for transport etc. I assume our Politicians will be smart, silly, I know, but one must hope for the best.

[J]

Here's an interesting question. Has OPEC actually helped us? World crude production follows a pretty decent bell curve until the cartel is set up, and then it increases more slowly. Did they put the peak off?

Yes. Especially the 70's oil embargos during which oil fields had production slowed or even mothballed in some cases. If we were to trace the pre-embargo bell curve and extrapolate that into the alternate future, the peak would be somewhere around 1995-2000, incidentally, 1995 was the global peak date as predicted by M. King Hubbert.

[Ender]

If married to nuclear or a non-fossil fuel burning power source, isn't the Fischer-Tropsch process effectively carbon neutral? You can pull hydrogen and carbon monoxide out of the air. It would be much more expensive then converting coal, but it would get us our gas without making things worse.

[Stuart Mackey]

If married to nuclear or a non-fossil fuel burning power source, isn't the Fischer-Tropsch process effectively carbon neutral? You can pull hydrogen and carbon monoxide out of the air. It would be much more expensive then converting coal, but it would get us our gas without making things worse.

Buggered If I know, all I know is that my country is set if we can get the railroad's sorted out and nuclear power legalised to the point we may even be able to export fuel.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I figure for my country, coal to fuel is the stop gap that can keep us going for nigh on 300 or more years if our politicians are smart enough to invest in it (and carbon capture tech). Of course the use rate diminishes if and when we wean ourselves off oil for transport etc. I assume our Politicians will be smart, silly, I know, but one must hope for the best.

Australia is one of the, if not, the premier coal supplier today, so you're in good hands provided China doesn't grab all their capacity up from you. I'm unaware of NZ coal supply and production rates, so apologies if I'm missing something. It's hot and been a long day.

Anyway...

Accurate and comprehensive estimates of national coal reserves are essential for a coherent national energy strategy, particularly for community, workforce, and infrastructure planning. Although the United States is endowed with a vast amount of coal, coal reserves (i.e., the coal that can be economically mined using current mining practices) are a small proportion of total coal resources.

Present estimates of coal reserves— which take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues—are based upon methods that have not been updated since their inception in 1974, and much of the input data were compiled in the early 1970s. Recent programs to assess coal recoverability in limited areas using updated methods indicate that only a small fraction of previously estimated reserves are actually recoverable. Such findings emphasize the need for a reinvigorated coal reserve assessment program using modern methods and technologies.

A coordinated federal-state-industry initiative to determine the magnitude and characteristics of the nation’s recoverable coal reserves, using modern mapping, coal characterization, and database technologies, should be instituted with the goal of providing policy makers with a comprehensive accounting of national coal reserves within 10 years. The report estimates that such an initiative, which should be lead by the U.S. Geological Survey and involve participation by the Energy Information Administration at DOE, states, and industry, will require additional funding of approximately $10 million per year.

...

To formulate national energy policies, federal policymakers need accurate estimates of the amount, location, and quality of mineable coal. Such estimates are particularly important for community, workforce, and infrastructure planning. It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.

***

China

We calculate that China has 30 years of life in hard coal reserves and it is difficult to see if production can be maintained at over 2 Btpa past 2030 or 2040, which will focus attention on technological change, including nuclear and use of low quality, expensive-to-mine coal deposits.


Europe


Consistent demand coupled with declining production could produce a potentially significant shortfall in supply and demand profiles by 2015. UK will be producing below 10 Mtpa, Germany will produce about 10 Mtpa of hard coal and Poland will at best be meeting its needs but is more likely to be importing coal. Between 2015 and 2020, South Africa may well have declined as an exporter to a level below 60 Mtpa.

This would suggest a total deficit of nearly 50 Mt by 2015, if demand is consistent with today’s levels, and by 2020 this could be 80Mt, as South Africa slows its export production. Post 2020, we believe South African exports could decline quickly to a level of 40-50 Mtpa, which could have a dramatic effect on coal supply if customers do not plan adequately.


Asia


China will decline as an exporter slowly (some would disagree and believe the country will exit the export market as quickly as they entered it) and create a shortfall in tonnage. South Africa, as the swing supplier, will have limited flexibility after 2015 and from 2020 may decline rapidly. Indonesia will probably see exports decline from 2010 onwards as existing operations come to the end of their lives.

There's a second report here also by one of the authors of the one linked above.

***

“There is also a spreadsheet file there with the raw data and extra plots that do not fit in a presentation, together with a link to an archive webcast from a talk I gave at the University of California at San Diego on May 11. I was an undergraduate at Cambridge in the early 70's when the coal miners brought down the Heath government. The critical part of this discussion is the British experience with coal, because it is the outstanding example of a country with major coal reserves that has gone through the complete rise and fall. The American examples for Pennsylvania anthracite and Virginia are much smaller amounts of coal.”

If married to nuclear or a non-fossil fuel burning power source, isn't the Fischer-Tropsch process effectively carbon neutral? You can pull hydrogen and carbon monoxide out of the air. It would be much more expensive then converting coal, but it would get us our gas without making things worse.

***

Another way would be freshwater algae fields, but that's a technology yet to really make any waves. There are technologies in the pipeline to take advantage of this for better fuel efficiency.

[Ender]

Ok, well since we have already hit the point where it is economical to use the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert coal to gas, when will it be economical to just pull it out of the air? IIRC the Mars Direct program has been working on this for some time, shouldn't their tech scale?

[Broomstick]

As a result, however, the media would be certain to cover the situation and to film what would certainly be iconic images: The scene of Americans lined up and waiting to receive food. The mere existence of such photographs would be more or less electrifying; and I confess it is a fond hope of mine that it does in fact happen, forcing people to start confronting such potential severity in the near future. The mere and iconic existence of such an event, in which food is no longer secure for Americans (even if the disruption was temporary and localized) would serve the purpose of warning that the decisive failure of the capitalist economy is at hand in the years to come.

Oh. Like those iconic images of breadlines and soup kitchens in the US from the 1930's? Yeah, that put a decisive end to capitalism...

Yes, we could have local shortages. Funny, maybe that's why I have a couple weeks worth (if I stretch things) worth of food in my pantry, and am trying to figure out a practical way to obtain and store a month's worth in my apartment.

It's not that one has to be completely independent of civilization and the grid, but being able to cope when things break down is a long-term survival strategy. Be able to help yourself.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ok, well since we have already hit the point where it is economical to use the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert coal to gas, when will it be economical to just pull it out of the air? IIRC the Mars Direct program has been working on this for some time, shouldn't their tech scale?

You need the energy first. What's the point in going through this process if you already have enough installed electricity to power a decent sized fleet of EVs? Of course, with gas and coal dying off, we have only renewables and nuclear, neither of which are anywhere near replacing even a fraction of global fossil fuel output in the foreseeable future.

The technology is there. The scaling in any reasonable time-frame isn't. The US is lucky to be getting the eight nukes it's planned before 2020 as it is, same with the UK's new sites which will only off-set the ones being retired.

[Ender]

You need the energy first. What's the point in going through this process if you already have enough installed electricity to power a decent sized fleet of EVs?

Because nothing else out there or foreseen comes close to matching petroleum in energy density, power density, stability, energy:weight ratio, and easy of transport. And that is neglecting its industrial applications. All these other technologies are the aluminum, titanium, or carbon fiber to oil's iron. Some things just have too much utility.

[Broomstick]

I also have to admit that I don't understand how someone that worried about the future could ever, ever justify buying the expense of a PS3. I haven't purchased a single luxury item since July of 2006 (literally).

Um... because you need to have fun, and you can?

I've been worried about the future longer than you've been alive, Duchess, but I still sunk quite a bit of money (enough to pay for house 15 years ago) into getting a pilot's license and flying. Why? Because I wanted to and I could. I also knew that if I didn't take advantage of the opportunity I had then I might never have another. I don't regret it. I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford to do that again, but I hope to. That sort of hope is part of what helps me get up every morning and work my ass off to improve my situation for me and my family. Life is not just about bare survival. Compared to my indulgence, a PS3 is pretty damn cheap.

And if it all goes to hell in the next few years... I can also derive great satisfaction from growing my own food and maintaining a household at a 19th Century level of technology. A different challenge for a different part of my life.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Because nothing else out there or foreseen comes close to matching petroleum in energy density, power density, stability, energy:weight ratio, and easy of transport. And that is neglecting its industrial applications. All these other technologies are the aluminum, titanium, or carbon fiber to oil's iron. Some things just have too much utility.

In that way, yes, petroleum is unique. That is not to say we shouldn't get off this addiction. We could replace a great many commuters using petrol or diesel today with EVs, provided we get around the cost and poor battery life problems. There will be plenty of natural fossil fuels to make plastics and other products that aren't an energy source, though even if that were not the case, the aforementioned processes could be used along with biological technologies to synthesize long chain hydrocarbons and specialised polymers for use where oil/gas/coal would be better as an energy storage medium.

Rubbing up against climate change is the imperative for change even if the decline rates for these resources were less than expected.

[Stuart Mackey]

I figure for my country, coal to fuel is the stop gap that can keep us going for nigh on 300 or more years if our politicians are smart enough to invest in it (and carbon capture tech). Of course the use rate diminishes if and when we wean ourselves off oil for transport etc. I assume our Politicians will be smart, silly, I know, but one must hope for the best.

Australia is one of the, if not, the premier coal supplier today, so you're in good hands provided China doesn't grab all their capacity up from you. I'm unaware of NZ coal supply and production rates, so apologies if I'm missing something. It's hot and been a long day.

Anyway...
snip

NZ has the second largest reserves, per capita, in the world. Solid Energy estimates our supply will last around 1000 years at current rates, but I have seen figures as low as two hundred for increased rates of extraction with current methods.

[Ender]

Because nothing else out there or foreseen comes close to matching petroleum in energy density, power density, stability, energy:weight ratio, and easy of transport. And that is neglecting its industrial applications. All these other technologies are the aluminum, titanium, or carbon fiber to oil's iron. Some things just have too much utility.

In that way, yes, petroleum is unique. That is not to say we shouldn't get off this addiction. We could replace a great many commuters using petrol or diesel today with EVs, provided we get around the cost and poor battery life problems. There will be plenty of natural fossil fuels to make plastics and other products that aren't an energy source, though even if that were not the case, the aforementioned processes could be used along with biological technologies to synthesize long chain hydrocarbons and specialised polymers for use where oil/gas/coal would be better as an energy storage medium.

Rubbing up against climate change is the imperative for change even if the decline rates for these resources were less than expected.

Talk about the ideal all you want, but my question was about the economic forces here. And the necessity of oil and its utility coupled with synthetic production means it will continue to be a power source to varying degree for a long time. I would still like to know when the carbon neutral FT process will become economical.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Life is not just about bare survival.

I make my own entertainment. My sole indulgence is the internet, and, Hell, I can justify that as being necessary for school, since it is. My medical expenses really do make my life a brutal crawl in which mere survival is the only possible outcome, though. I don't forsee that changing before the worsening economic situation makes it impossible for life to be anything more, anyway--at least in the United States. But by that time I'd hope to be ensconced in a little apartment in Paris, eating every night at a Cafe after coming home on an electric train from the powerplant I work in. What more of a high life can someone aspire to? I have no real belief that things will ever improve for me; my reason for going to school is to get the skills I need to be able to keep treading water as things get worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh. Like those iconic images of breadlines and soup kitchens in the US from the 1930's? Yeah, that put a decisive end to capitalism...

Well, it would be nice if something changes in that regard.

Yes, we could have local shortages. Funny, maybe that's why I have a couple weeks worth (if I stretch things) worth of food in my pantry, and am trying to figure out a practical way to obtain and store a month's worth in my apartment.

It's not that one has to be completely independent of civilization and the grid, but being able to cope when things break down is a long-term survival strategy. Be able to help yourself.

Rice. Except it's in short supply--you could also store potatoes or grain, but it is quite easy. Amy and I have more than 135lbs of rice, 35lbs of potatoes, and about 20lbs of pasta on hand right now, along with 5lbs of flour. I certainly don't personally fear starvation.

[Big Phil]

Life is not just about bare survival.

I make my own entertainment. My sole indulgence is the internet, and, Hell, I can justify that as being necessary for school, since it is. My medical expenses really do make my life a brutal crawl in which mere survival is the only possible outcome, though. I don't forsee that changing before the worsening economic situation makes it impossible for life to be anything more, anyway--at least in the United States. But by that time I'd hope to be ensconced in a little apartment in Paris, eating every night at a Cafe after coming home on an electric train from the powerplant I work in. What more of a high life can someone aspire to? I have no real belief that things will ever improve for me; my reason for going to school is to get the skills I need to be able to keep treading water as things get worse.

A cynic might say that you want things to get terrible for everyone because you don't believe they'll ever get any better for you; if you can't have what everyone else has, why should they? Is that a fair assessment or not?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A cynic might say that you want things to get terrible for everyone because you don't believe they'll ever get any better for you; if you can't have what everyone else has, why should they? Is that a fair assessment or not?

No. I don't desire these things in the first place. The written word is both my main fascination and point of interest in life. My ideal goal for life is to own a sailing yacht--that I live on as my only home. The kind of somewhat battered liveaboard that has the stereotype of belonging to semi-transient weirdos that local governments frequently try to stamp out at marinas. So, no, I don't aspire to have all your electronic crap, and I'm not bitter that I'll never get it. I just take amusement and pleasure out of the death of middle-class mediocrity, and great joy in the end of things like SUVs, Sweet 16 parties, etc:

Let us call it schadenfreud at the Embarrassment of Riches, certainly? In short, I don't want it because you have it--I simply don't want it at all. My ambitions might be realizable, after all--a boat like one I'd be happy with can sell for substantially less money than some top-line SUVs, let alone a house. My own personal ambitions in life are in short built around knowledge rather than possessions--and that's why preserving human progress is, to me, a sufficient reason to justify almost any action.

My only real fear, or bitterness, is that I might not, even with all the education in the world, be able to substantially help out my friends. I'd rather not live with the guilt of that--I have perhaps up to a half a million dollars I'd spend on other people, given the chance, and I'd like to make at least that much to guarantee I can do, in a reasonably short timeframe. To that end I'd gladly live in closer quarters than what I have now even working a job which could, with a Engineer's Degree or Doctorate by my mid-30's, make substantially more than most other people on this board.

Also, I'm vastly concerned about what the world is going to look like in 70 years, because in 70 years I'll still be living and working in it, when you're likely dead. You see, my father is 90 years old and still works (ed. -- yes, that means I was born when he was sixty-five. My father, not my grandfather), and most of my relatives on both sides of the family have lived into their mid-90s. And my father doesn't take care of himself nearly as much as he should. I could easily, easily live to be 110, and if medical science progresses enough, 120, and I could certainly work at a professional job until 90 or even 95.

So I REALLY don't want to deal with the global warming and economic crash the modern day yuppie little shits have brought down on their heads. They'll all end up dead at 65 from heart attacks and obesity due to stuffing themselves full of Beef Brisquete and Pecan Pie all day long and getting in their fucking Yukon Denalis for a drive around the block, but I'll live 35 years longer than their children will.

Also, I'd sort of like to raise a family of adopted children at some point, and guess what, I'm already thinking ahead to the fact that if I'm raising kids, I don't want them living on a doomed shithole of a planet. If this means that I need for a bunch of yuppies to kill themselves as their incomes go from 200,000 USD a year to something more like mine and Amy's right now, that we survive on just fine, then I'm going to laugh at them as they jump from their corner offices. I may well still be here in 2100, trying to avoid being a burden on my children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren in my last years while they cope with a world gone to Hell thanks to the fact that everyone needed their SUV and their PS3 and their 72in Plasma Screen TV.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What she said. Time to face destiny.