According to the International Energy Agency, here’s what it would take to achieve the goal of cutting GHG emissions by 50% between now and mid-century:

  • 30 new nuclear plants;
  • 17,000 windmills;
  • 400 biomass power plants;
  • Two hydroelectric facilities the size of China’s massive Three Gorges Dam; and
  • 42 coal and gas power plants with yet-to-be-developed carbon-capture technology.

Now consider this: this list does not describe what we would have to build between now and 2050, but what we would have to build each and every year until then!

One more thing: even if we managed to do all this (which we obviously cannot), the impact on global temperatures would be hardly noticeable by 2050. According to the best-known climate-economic model, this vast undertaking would likely wind up reducing global temperatures by just one-tenth of one degree centigrade (one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit), while holding back sea-level rises by only one centimeter (less than half an inch).

An extra catch.  Unless we find a way, we depend our well being in the mid and long term on a few countries/persons that set up the production and price of oil.  That is without even mentioning even these powerful countries/persons cannot fully control what mother nature can provide…

Source: Project Syndicate

The Chinese government has applied for the rights to conduct deep-sea mining for valuable metals in the international waters of the southwestern Indian Ocean. Using remotely operated underwater vehicles, China identified a reserve of sulphide deposits near a pocket of hydrothermal vents, located more than 5,000 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. They hope to mine valuable metals — including copper, nickel, and cobalt, which are used in the production of high-tech products such as cellphones, laptop computers and batteries. While the environmental risks of such mining operations are unknown, conservationists are concerned the mining could disturb ecosystems over a much wider area. “Conditions at this depth are normally very stable, and any mining damage would impact the environment for a very long time,” said Richard Harrington of the UK-based Marine Conservation Society.

Source: Yale 360

If there are environmental problems/concerns with Public Companies under the eye of the press, the public, the environmental groups in the Gulf of Mexico, what can we expect with the transparency of Chinese companies in the middle of nowhere…

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium”.

Source: NYT

Follow the Elearning Course @ DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION

The world will never ran out of oil.  That is the simple truth, whether you like it or not.

To keep demand and supply balanced, the price of oil will rise.

At a given point, other fuels will start replacing oil.

In the future our economy will no longer depend on oil.

This would be the happy ending of a fairy tale.

Hold on…  While this transition takes place, hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of people will see their well being vanished.  At the same time, the world will see new billionaires (maybe even a trillionaire) flourish.

Are we in agreement?

The big million-dollar question is what happens from here to there…and what can we do to be prepared?

No doubt the transition is going to challenge our civilization.  It’s our challenge.

So what happens when there is a net decrease in energy flow through our civilization for we are absolutely dependent upon increasing flows of concentrated energy to evolve, grow, to form and maintain our complex civilization?

This point is not rhetorical, access to increasing flows of concentrated energy, which can be transformed into work and dispersed energy, is the foundation upon which our civilization stands. Yet we are at a point where these flows are, with high probability, about to begin decreasing.

There is growing concern, as expressed by Maquarie Bank, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey consultants, the International Energy Agency and the Saudi Oil minister Ali Naimi amongst others, that as the global economy begins to recover we will experience another rise in oil prices which will choke off further growth or in the words of Ali Naimi, constrained or declining oil production will “take the wheels of an already derailed global economy”.

Oil contributes to about 40% of global energy production, but over 90% of all transport fuel. It provided the physical linkages of good and people across the globalised economy.

We should intuit that an energy withdrawal should have major systemic implications, for without energy flows nothing happens.

Once the effects of decline become apparent, we could lose much of what we might call the operational fabric of our civilization. The operational fabric comprises the given conditions at any time that support system wide functionality. This includes functioning markets, financing, monetary stability, operational supply-chains, transport, digital infrastructure, command & control, health service, institutions of trust, and sociopolitical stability. It is what we casually assume does and will exist, and which provides the structural foundation for any project we wish to develop.

How could our economy choke? How could we loose grip?

When oil was at $135 per barrel, the US was spending the equivalent of $1Trillion per annum for oil, which is equivalent to 15% of US take-home pay for all taxpayers, nor does this percentage account for indirect rises associated with food (highly fossil-fuel dependent, and competitive with bio-fuels), and natural gas (price correlated). This hit discretionary consumption and put pressure on peoples‟ ability to service their loans.

Current biofuel production is 1.45 mb/d. However the energy content of a barrel of biofuels is much less than the energy content of a barrel of oil that is replacing, so in energy terms current biofuel production is about 1mb/d. To produce at this level has taken years of growth and subsidies, we would need to expand the industry by 275% in the first year alone, when even at the industries height it had a maximum growth rate of less than 30%.

Global food production is already straining against a rising demand and the stresses of soil degradation, water constraints, over-fishing, and the burgeoning effects of climate change. It is estimated that between seven and ten calories of fossil fuel energy go into every one calorie of food energy we consume. For example, it has been estimated that without nitrogen fertilizer, produced from natural gas, no more than 48% of today’s population could be fed at the inadequate per capital level of 1900. Today it is true to say that no country is self-sufficient in food production.

Do you think this is pessimistic science fiction?

Well two-thirds of oil producing countries has already passed their local peak. For example, the United States peaked in 1970, and the United Kingdom in 1999 and decline has continued in both cases. It should be noted that both countries contain the worlds‟ best universities, most dynamic financial markets, most technologically able exploration and production companies, and stable pro-business political environments. Nevertheless, in neither case has decline been halted.

As large old fields producing cheap oil decline, more and more effort must be made to maintain production with the discovery and production from smaller and more expensive fields. In financial terms, adding each new barrel of production (the marginal barrel) becomes more expensive. Sadad al-Huseini said in 2007 that the technical floor (the basic cost of producing oil) was about $70 per barrel on the margin, and that this would rise by $12 per annum (assuming demand was maintained by economic growth). This rapid escalation in the marginal cost of producing oil is recent. In early 2002, the marginal barrel was $20.

Manfred KISSLING

Editor

Related article:  FEASTA

Scientists are unable to account for about half of the heat that is believed to have accumulated in the atmosphere in recent years as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, according to a new study. Using data Missing Heatfrom satellites and other sources, scientists from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) calculated how much heat should have been measured on Earth as a result of incoming solar energy and heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Reporting in the journal Science, the researchers said that increases in ocean and air temperatures account for only half of the heat that should have built up on Earth since 2003. The extra heat may be accumulating deep in the oceans, below 3,000 feet, where few measurements are taken. It may also be manifesting itself in the rapid onset of the El Nino weather pattern last year, or the swift melting of glaciers worldwide. In any case, NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, lead author of the paper, said it is imperative that scientists devise methods to better measure the flow of energy through the Earth’s climate system. “That heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” said Trenberth. “It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

Source: YALE 360

  • Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day, report says
  • Cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 a barrel

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,” says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: “While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.”

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with “an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments.”

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that “a chance exists that we may experience a decline” of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

“It’s surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on,” he said.

“The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was “decades away”. In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?”

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. “One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest,” it points out.

Source:  The Guardian

China’s demand for oil jumped by an “astonishing” 28% in January compared with the same month a year earlier, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says.

The body added that demand for oil in 2010 would be underpinned by rising demand from emerging markets, with half of all growth coming from Asia.

But the IEA predicted demand in developed countries would fall by 0.3%.

The IEA has increased its global oil demand forecast for 2010 by 1.8% to 86.6 million barrels a day.

Oil prices were above $83 a barrel earlier today, the highest in two months, but dropped back to closer to $80 in late afternoon trading.

The IEA said the high price level was due to “heightening of geopolitical tensions affecting some producing countries”, but that this had been balanced by “ample physical oil supplies”.

Crude oil production by countries in the oil producers’ cartel Opec rose to a 14-month high of 29.2 million barrels a day in February.

During February, Iraq pumped an extra 115,000 barrels a day.

Opec is due to meet on 17 March and the IEA expects it will maintain its current production targets.

Source: BBC

  • For Darpa, the support for algae is part of a broader mission for the US military to obtain half of its fuel from renewable energy sources by 2016. That time line meant that the Pentagon needed to develop technologies to make its hardware “fuel agnostic”, capable that is of running on any energy source including methane and propane.
  • The US Air Force wants its entire fleet of jet fighters and transport aircraft to test-fly a 50-50 blend of petroleum-based fuel and other sources – including algae – by next year.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation’s single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.

Darpa’s research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa.

“Darpa has achieved the base goal to date,” she said. “Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon.”

McQuiston said a larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, would come on line in 2011 and she was hopeful the costs would drop still further – ensuring that the algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. She said the projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm.

Unlike corn-based ethanol, algal farms do not threaten food supplies. Some strains are being grown on household waste and in brackish water. Algae draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when growing; when the derived fuel is burned, the same CO2 is released, making the fuel theoretically zero-carbon, although processing and transporting the fuel requires some energy.

Source: The Observer

  • EV are a short term tip of the iceberg solution to our energy challenges
  • Lithium-ion is a non-renewable natural resource with limited supplies
  • The future is Hydrogen fuel cells

Major carmakers as Toyota, Honda, Daimler, General Motors, and Hyundai/Kia are deep into plans for commercial production of cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells starting in 2012.

Like natural gas, hydrogen can be used as a car fuel with engine modifications. But carmakers think fuel cells are the better, more efficient, silent, clean power source for transportation. They function somewhat like a battery, except that their fuel is constantly replenished, reacting electrochemically with the air’s oxygen to make electricity to drive an electric motor.

Today, such vehicles are hand-built and expensive, but costs will come down once series production gets underway: Toyota says that it expects to “shock” the industry with its cost reduction as much as 90%.

As for hydrogen fuel costs are expected to be $2-3 per kilogram by around 2018 (a kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline), but because fuel cells are about twice as efficient as internal combustion engines, the effective cost per unit of distance would be about half that.

It is worth noting that hydrogen’s supporters do not oppose battery-powered cars, and they embrace biofuels as another renewable source of hydrogen. But because of the weight of electric batteries, their limited range, cost, and other considerations, batteries are best suited primarily for short-range city cars.

Source:  Project SyndicateEcobella Blog

Next Page »