Energy issues in the news...

[AC_Hacker]

Here is a place to post late-breaking energy issues...

-AC_Hacker

[AC_Hacker]

I found this from The Times of London, October 2, 2009

Rich countries 'must slash living standards' to fight climate change

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Living standards in Britain and other rich countries must fall sharply over the next decade if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a leading climate research centre.

Consumption of energy-intensive goods and services should be cut and remain capped until low-carbon alternatives are available, said the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The study says that Britain ’s carbon dioxide emissions need to fall twice as fast as planned by the Government. It concludes that global greenhouse gas emissions are rising much faster than previously thought.

It says that Britain should commit to making all energy, including for electricity, heating and cars, zero-carbon by 2025, at least 25 years earlier than planned.

The centre, a partnership of seven universities including Oxford , Cambridge and Manchester , says that the economies of developed nations will have to shrink and consumption of almost all types of goods will have to fall “in the short to medium term”.

Speaking to The Times, Professor Kevin Anderson, the centre’s director, said: “The wealthier parts of the world, including Britain , will have to seriously consider reducing their levels of consumption over the next 10-15 years while we put in place low-carbon technologies.

“That may mean having only one car per household, a smaller fridge, buying fewer clothes and electronic goods and curtailing the number of weekend breaks that we have.

“It’s a very uncomfortable message but we need a planned economic recession. Economic growth is currently incompatible with reductions in absolute emissions.”

The study says that global emissions are rising much faster than has been assumed by Britain and other countries in setting their carbon targets. It says that these targets are “dangerously misleading” because they focus on distant dates, such as 2050, and avoid mentioning the immediate cuts that are needed.

Professor Anderson calculates that emissions in all developed countries must peak by 2012 and fall by 20 per cent a year from 2018 to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2C above the pre-industrial average.

Britain and most major economies agreed in July to limit the increase to 2C to avoid an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in the developing world. The global average has already risen by almost 1C.

Most climate scientists agree that an increase above 2C is likely to trigger mass migration from countries made uninhabitable by drought and rising sea levels.

The Tyndall study’s calculations assume that emissions from energy use in China , India and other developing countries carry on rising until 2025 and then decline at an increasing rate, reaching zero by 2050.

This is highly optimistic because China and India have made clear that they will refuse to accept any deadline for cutting their overall emissions. They have instead offered to reduce the rate of emissions growth compared with “business as usual”.

Britain has already accepted that it would be unfair to cap emissions in developing countries because this would undermine the economic growth that is lifting their populations out of extreme poverty.

Professor Anderson said Britain needed to understand that allowing emissions to grow rapidly in the developing world would require savage cuts in its own emissions.

He said that the world could afford to emit 2,200 billion tonnes of CO2 in the 21st century to have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature rise below 2C.

“About three quarters of that carbon ration will go to developing countries, which means that Britain and other developed countries have only a quarter.”

He said that this was fair because emissions per capita were far higher in the developed world: 20 tonnes per person per year in the US and 10 tonnes in Britain but only 5 tonnes in China and less than 2 tonnes in India .

A separate study published this week by the Met Office Hadley Centre found that the global average temperature could rise by 4C as early as 2060.

Previous reports, including one in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had suggested that an increase of this scale would not happen until 2100.

The Met Office used computer models which took into account new findings on the rate at which carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans and forests.

Dr Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Hadley Centre, said: “If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon then we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes.”

Professor David MacKay, the newly appointed chief scientist for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that government figures claiming Britain had cut emissions by 21 per cent since 1990 were an “illusion”.

He said that the cut had been achieved largely because Britain had exported much of its manufacturing overseas. The figures did not include emissions from goods Britain imported from China and other countries.

Regards,

-AC_Hacker

[gasstingy]

While not a scientist, and I AM susceptible to being hoodwinked, I do believe that we humans can and have created enough pollution to cause changes in the climate. {For my own logic system, I consider carbon emissions to be pollution, just like the garbage that causes acid rain.} The average person I speak to, however, thinks it's not possible to affect the earth's climate and they have no intention to try and do anything different. To try and sell the idea of a person needing to "slash living standards" is going to be difficult to an extreme. The status quo has inertia on its side and I don't see much chance of a politician suggesting a "planned economic recession" for the greater good.

OTOH, what they consider slashing living standards is what I have been working to accomplish over the last few years, and I don't consider it lowering my living standards at all. I think of it as retirement planning. My general goals include (1) reducing my electric consumption / increasing my PV production to the point where I produce more than I use. (2) Reducing my water consumption / adding rainwater catchment and storage to the point where my water bill never exceeds the base charge. I want it to be enough to keep the garden watered and run my toilets, showers and washing machine. (3) Getting an electric vehicle {buy / build} that I can drive powered by PV. (4) Growing a garden to help feed me and to motivate me to get off my backside, exercise and enjoy the outdoors.

[strider3700]

I fully agree we can cause damage to the environment.
I fully agree that we are causing damage to the environment.
I fully agree that the results of this damage can be horrible.
I fully agree that society as a whole need to change to stop this damage.
I fully agree that society as a whole will not do anything to change since it may affect their lifestyle.

This is why I'm a doomer and a member at Malthusia • Index page

Every change and improvement I do to make my lifestyle more efficient and self reliant is trying to buy myself and my family a little better chance at survival. If it helps save the world that is great but realistically I don't see the world being saved.

[AC_Hacker]

Originally Posted by strider3700

This is why I'm a doomer and a member at Malthusia • Index page

Would it be fair to say that you are 'very Mathusiastic'?

-AC_Hacker

[strider3700]

LOL excellent pun, I do however want to point out that there is a big difference between wanting doom and expecting doom. I very much don't want it to happen.

[RobertSmalls]

Maltheus was wrong about population growth. Deaths exceed births in almost all wealthy countries. As poor countries transition to wealth, their residents will start having children later, and having fewer children as the parents are more confident the children will survive and be able to support their parents in old age, and as society will require them to spend more time and money on the upbringing of each child.

Sub-saharan Africa is doomed (they do not appear to be on track to transition to wealth, while Malthusian crisis is already setting in in many regions, guaranteeing abject poverty), but I'm hopeful that places like Pakistan and China will escape that fate. Productivity is rising more rapidly than the population is growing.

The US? Not even a chance of doom. Our scientific and engineering capabilities are literally the best in the world. Given the gradual nature of the coming decline in fossil fuel production, we will have plenty of time to respond.

The US produces 3.3 times as many calories as is required to feed its people a vegetarian diet. We export a large fraction of that, and feed a larger fraction to our delicious, nutritious livestock. In a crisis, we'd eat the cows, then the cow corn, then shut down biofuel refineries, then shut down exports. We're not going to starve.

Oil? My ten year old Japanese car gets the job done on one third as much fuel as the average. Most people have lots of room for conservation there.

There will be resource shortfalls. Some of them won't be pretty. I will conserve before the shortfalls arrive because it's the right thing to do, and because it's the best way to ensure my future wealth and well-being. But there is a scant chance of doom.

[AC_Hacker]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Maltheus was wrong about population growth. Deaths exceed births in almost all wealthy countries. As poor countries transition to wealth, their residents will start having children later, and having fewer children as the parents are more confident the children will survive and be able to support their parents in old age, and as society will require them to spend more time and money on the upbringing of each child.

You are correct about birthrate slowing as industrial development increases.

But there is a modern aspect to the Malthusian prediction... since I don't know what it is properly called, I'll call it 'Malthusian Resource Destruction'. Regarding this issue, the more 'developed' or 'industrialized' a population becomes, the greater is the per-capita use (destruction) of resources. This increase in resource use (destruction) applies to non-renewable resources and also to renewable resources. Taking petroleum consumption as an example, the United States overall uses (destroys) about eight times as much petroleum as India. Comparing the per-capita consumption (destruction) of the United States to India, we use (destroy) 29 times as much petroleum per person as India. The more developed or industrialized the population, the higher the rate of resource use (destruction). There may be some marginal gains in efficiencies but the rate of resource use (destruction) just keeps climbing.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

The US? Not even a chance of doom. Our scientific and engineering capabilities are literally the best in the world.

I sure wish I could be as comfortable about this issue, but it's just not happening for me.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Our scientific and engineering capabilities are literally the best in the world.

We certainly have done pretty well in the past. But things are changing...

Here's a quote (2005) from Christian Science Monitor:

If China graduates more than eight times the number of engineers that the United States does, is it thrashing America in the technology race?

That's what many scientists and politicians are suggesting in the wake of an October report by the highly regarded National Academies. Its numbers are startling: China adds 600,000 new engineers a year; the US, only 70,000. Even India, with 350,000 new engineers a year, is outdoing the US, the study suggests.

China adds 600,000 per year as compared to the US adding 70,000? That's more than 8:1!

But then, if you also consider that 50% of our engineers are engaged directly or indirectly in achieving military objectives (destruction), the ratio rises to 17:1.

I used to teach engineering and science classes at a local community college, and I can tell you that some of the brightest and most motivated students I had were Chinese and Indian.

No, I don't think that we have a lock on science and engineering.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Given the gradual nature of the coming decline in fossil fuel production, we will have plenty of time to respond.

In former times, the rate of decline of a well was pretty symmetrical, pretty much like the Hubbert curve. But improvements in extraction techniques have increased rate of the end of life flow of oil from a well. These are referred to as secondary and then tertiary techniques. then these techniques were applied earlier. These improved techniques don't increase the overall recoverable oil from a well, but they do increase the rate of extraction. In other words, they shorten the time that it takes to pump a well to it's end of life. Also when the well finally does go into decline, the decline rate is steeper than before secondary and tertiary techniques were used.

So ironically, the extraction curve becomes a bit more triangular in shape.

Here's a piece about Mexico's Cantarell decline rate (secondary and tertiary techniques were used in Cantarell):

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, said crude output fell 9.2 percent in January as its largest field plunged at the second-fastest rate ever.

Production dropped to 2.685 million barrels a day, from 2.957 million barrels a year earlier, Pemex, as the Mexico City- based company is known, said today in a statement. Pemex extracted 772,000 barrels a day from Cantarell, the world’s third-largest field, a decline of 38 percent from a year earlier.

That' right, 38% decline in a year. That's very steep.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

In a crisis, we'd eat the cows, then the cow corn, then shut down biofuel refineries, then shut down exports. We're not going to starve.

I remember reading a few years back that the big shift to fossil fuels created a shortfall in food shelter supplies, that millions of people rely on, so some people are already close to starving.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Oil? My ten year old Japanese car gets the job done on one third as much fuel as the average. Most people have lots of room for conservation there.

I have a Honda Insight also. I just love it. If only they had sold more than 14,000 of them.

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

But there is a scant chance of doom.

I wish I could be so comfortable...

-AC_Hacker

[strider3700]

I completely agree with everything Robertsmalls listed assuming we have enough time and the will to implement it. For the longest time I thought we would solve our issues and get the changes in place in time and it would be a great opportunity. Then I realized we'll fight and argue as to does the issue exist, will it affect us, who's fault is it, does it really need dealt with, do we deserve it,... and we won't get around to implementing the fix until it's far too late.

Lately I've decided that the timeline is getting too short anyways. As Ac_hacker explained the downslope of the peak is likely to be far steeper then the upslope. I'm also confident that the peak has already come and gone and we're just riding out that flat spot at the top for a little longer.

If the economy doesn't recover it's all a moot point anyways. Even if a car got 1000 mpg and could be charged with solar while parked was released tomorrow most people couldn't afford to buy it. It will take decades before the lower end of the population can buy one and frankly I don't think we have decades.

[AC_Hacker]

The ASPO-USA (Association for the Study of Peak Oil - USA) holds an annual meeting for the purpose of bringing together people in various fields that may be especially relevant to the subject of Peak Oil.

The 2010 session was held in Washington, DC and ended about a week ago.

Here is a link to the PowerPoint presentations used during the conference.

Without the spoken word, the PowerPoints are less informative than they would be with audio.

MP3's of the presentations usually turn up someplace on the web, without the Powerpoints, so keep your hopes up that we can get both together in the same spot.

The presentations cover a very wide range of perspectives and are usually extremely interesting.

The people who give these presentations are on the same page (if not the very same people) as the people who brief the military, major corporations, and the government(s).

Here are presentation PowerPoints for:

• 2009
• 2008

Here is a link to a series of ASPO-USA 2010 presentations that were given at the conference regarding "Energy and National Security".

Best Regards,

-AC_Hacker