http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/2/22553/79871

grist.org

But right, the biodiversity crisis should certainly not be overshadowed by the global warming crisis.

Indeed, the former is closer to the foundation of environmentalist ethics: loving concern for all the community of living creatures on the Earth.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Not that going zero carbon is either unimportant or  lacks urgency, but I guess that a global energy crunch [not just coal] would kill millions or possibly even a billion or so in very short order. Why - a collapse in transportation [oil] food miles & agriculture.

Energy crunch? That's almost certain, with devoloping countries like China and India rapidly increasing their demand for energy, together with the energy addicted developed world we have rapidly climing energy demands combined with diminishing reserves - although we don't know when, it must happen, sometime sooner or later.

Anybody who thinks that limited resources means it's OK to plunder natural resources right up to the wire, without developing renewable alternative high efficiency generation and other technologies and better insulation ready to switch over to renewables, is heading for a hard landing and fooling themselves.

I vote for a soft landing! Tax fossil-fuels and use those taxes to encourage develop renewable technologies.
------------------------------
I know it's not coal, but: in the UK gasoline (cheapest) is currently 8.06 USD per Gal. US! Put that in your SUV and drive it! That's about $1 per mile in a Hummer, if you drive it carefully.

My SUV is zero fossil-fuel - it's a bike!

----------------------------
Science - our understanding of nature and the universe, trumps everything - religion, politics!

Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into a more rational perspective:

USA:  20,730,000 bbl/day  (~25% of the world usage)  (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India:  2,450,000 bbl/day
The World:   82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day   (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023   (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources:  Population of India and China:  ~ 2,450,000
Germany  ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK   60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand.  Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them!  (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita!  Will they ask why?

Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.

Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!

Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars.   Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc

Andrew Dessler's lead article raises some interesting questions.

There are a lot of estimates out there, but the Oil + Gas Journal estimates:

Proven oil reserves word-wide are 157 billion tons
Current use is 3.5 billion tons/year
So at today's level of usage, there are 45 years
This number includes a portion of the Canadian tar sands currently under development, but not the worldwide oil shale deposits (USA and elsewhere); these non-included sources are huge and could increase reserves by an additional 300-400 billion tons.
1 ton of oil generates 0.85 tons of C (as CO2), and around 75% of the oil is used as fuel, so including oil shale the total oil reserves would generate around 290 GtC.

Proven natural gas reserves are 176,000 billion cubic meters
Current use is 2,800 billion cubic meters/year
So at today's level of usage, there are 62 years
1 cubic meter of natural gas generates 0.55 kg C (as CO2), and around 60% of the natural gas is used as fuel, so we have a total CO2 generation of around 60 GtC.

Coal reserves (Wikipedia) are 909 billion tons
Current use is 6.2 billion tons/year
So at today's level of usage, there are 147 years
1 ton of coal generates around 0.91 ton of C (as CO2), and around 95% all of the coal is used as fuel, so the total coal reserves would generate around 800 GtC.

All together this represents around 1,150 GtC (as CO2).

We are currently generating 7.5 GtC/year; at the same time atmospheric CO2 is increasing by 1.9 ppmv/year.   So, assuming the same ratio stays in the atmosphere, the world's total supply of fossil fuels would increase atmospheric CO2 by around 290 ppmv, from today's 380 ppmv to 670 ppmv.

So it appears that the 500 ppmv, which Andrew Dessler quoted from Professor Rutledge's study, could be a bit low (possibly the oil shale was not considered in the reserves), but it is not that far off.

How quickly this would occur depends on how quickly we switch from fossil fuels to other sources, such as nuclear.

It also depends on the discovery of new fossil fuel deposits and the possible development of totally new technologies.

The estimates of uranium fuel reserves for nuclear power generation vary greatly, and most reported figures state the quantities, which are currently recoverable at a given price. Most estimates agree, however, that there is enough recoverable uranium available to last well over 100 years (a recent German study says 200 years), even if a major portion of new electrical power generation is from nuclear.

In the future there will be new nuclear technologies, as well, such as the "fast breeder" reactors, nuclear fusion, etc.

Max

Further to the earlier post on fossil fuel reserves and atmospheric CO2.

If we assume that the combustion of all fossil fuel reserves on Earth today will increase atmospheric CO2 from today's 380 ppmv to a level of 670 ppmv, what does this mean as far as temperatures are concerned?

Using IPCC's estimated radiative forcing (RF) of 1.66 W/m^2 from the increased CO2 concentration from pre-industrial values of 280 ppmv in 1750 to values of 379 ppmv in 2006, we arrive at an additional RF from 2006 to the future date when all fossil fuels are gone equal to 3.05 W/m^2 (the relationship is logarithmic).

This means that the burning of all the fossil fuels available on this planet will cause an additional temperature increase (from today until that time) of 0.56C.

Even Andrew Dessler will have to agree that this is truly insignificant.

Let's all go back to sleep and forget about this non-problem.

Or better yet, let's forget about this non-problem and start to concentrate on solving some real problems that exist out there.

Max

We have seen that burning all the fossil fuel available in this world would theoretically emit 1150 GtC, and that this would get us to around 670 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, which would add around 0.6C warming from today, according to the radiative forcing for CO2 used by IPCC (and the greenhouse theory). [The study cited by Andrew limited CO2 to around 500 ppmv, so the warming would be a bit less.]

This is based on the assumptions that (a) increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are caused by human CO2 emissions and (b) the currently observed ratio of CO2 emission to change in atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue into the future (7.5 GtC emission cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1.9 ppmv); at this observed ratio, only around 39% of the emissions remain in the atmosphere.

IPCC SPM 2007 (p.16) states:
"Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain."

The speculated (but admittedly "uncertain") positive feedback from "climate-carbon cycle coupling" would suggest in theory that a higher percentage of the CO2 emissions would remain in the atmosphere than has been physically observed to date (only around 39% remain in the atmosphere, as stated above).  A major portion is absorbed by the oceans, which contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.

IPCC goes on to say: Based on the current "understanding of climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest" that "to stabilize at 1000 ppm, this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 GtC to approximately 1100 GtC".

There is not enough carbon in all the fossils fuels in this world to ever reach a "model average of 1415 GtC", so the models are obviously wrong in their base assumption (the point made by Andrew Dessler's lead article).

If we were to assume that (as a result of the hypothetical "climate-carbon cycle feedback") 100% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere remains in the atmosphere indefinitely, the total CO2 from burning all fossil fuels in this world would increase CO2 by 740 ppmv (from today's 380 ppmv to a maximum imaginable theoretically possible long-term concentration of 1120 ppmv).

And there is another "unexplained" loss.  Not only does the ocean absorb a significant portion of the emitted CO2 (estimated to be around 1/3 of the amount emitted), but an equivalent portion apparently "disappears" elsewhere.

The "e-fold lifetime" of CO2 in the atmosphere has been calculated to be around 55 years (the relationship is logarithmic and the half-life is 38 years).
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

The cited study also shows how IPCC models have made unrealistic assumptions concerning the amount of carbon theoretically available (Andrew's lead article) and have ignored the limited lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But let's take the most absurd worst-worst case imaginable and apply the greenhouse theory (plus the RF estimate for CO2 used by IPCC);

All the world's fossil fuels would generate 1,150 GtC.

If this all stayed in the atmosphere indefinitely (i.e. no absorption by the oceans and an eternal lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere), the maximum future CO2 concentration ever reachable is around 1120 ppmv.

Using the greenhouse theory: ln (1120 / 380) = 1.08

Applying IPCC's forcing factor for CO2: 5.35 * 1.08 = 5.78 W / m^2 (radiative forcing of increasing CO2 from 380 to 1120 ppmv).

Applying Stefan-Boltzmann: dT = 5.78 / [ 4 * 5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3) ]
= 1.1K (equals 1.1C)

So the worst-worst ever imaginable theoretically possible warming from burning all of the world's entire fossil fuels results in a global temperature increase of slightly over 1 degree C.

This does not sound like a disaster scenario to me, even if James E. Hansen and Al Gore see it that way.

Max

Andrew, How about we unit to get people interested by the real priorities, the most obvious being the great suffering and deaths of millions in Africa

"Anybody who thinks that limited resources means it's OK to plunder natural resources right up to the wire, without developing renewable alternative high efficiency generation and other technologies and better insulation ready to switch over to renewables, is heading for a hard landing and fooling themselves."

All of this makes good sense.  Saving energy where possible, reducing dependency on imported oil from politically unstable regions, eliminating waste, replacing low efficiency power plants with newer high-efficiency plants, including renewables (where this makes economic sense), building new nuclear generation plants, growing motor fuel (as Brazil is already doing successfully with sugar cane ethanol), etc.

40% of natural gas and 25% of petroleum go into higher added value non-fuel end uses (petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizers, etc) today.  This percentage will undoubtedly increase in the future.  Even coal will eventually become too scarce to just burn and it will be used for higher added value end uses.  South Africa (SASOL) already does this.

And there is no practical limit of nuclear fuel as uranium available on this planet, just using today's fission technology, not to mention future "fast breeder" reactors that use less than 2% of the uranium used today per KWH generated.

And then there is the long-term possibility of nuclear fusion if and when fuel for fission ever starts to run short several hundreds of years from now.

This does not require that we "tax fossil-fuels and use those taxes to encourage develop[ment of] renewable [and other fossil fuel independent] technologies" as CC suggests.

These developments will all occur because they make sense.  

But all of this has nothing to do with taxing carbon to mitigate the the imaginary "threat from AGW", which does not make any sense at all.

Max

1. Is population growth and rising living standards included in the estimated rate of fossil fuel use?
   
2. Do they consider the declining energy returned on investment? e.g. you only get ~2 barrels of tar sands oil for each barrel equivalent of energy expended to extract it so tar sands reserves would last less than 1/10 as long as the same number of barrels of conventional oil.
   
3. What are the estimated rates of conversion to non-fossil energy sources in this model (if included at all) and are we really converting that quickly? I suspect not.

Your suspicion may be flawed.

History has shown us that we shift priorities as new challenges and opportunities arise, so there is no reason to believe that this history will not repeat itself.

The "green" opposition to nuclear energy is already starting to crumble as it becomes clear that this is the most viable solution to the possibility of decreasing fossil fuel supplies.

Look around you.  That is what is happening.

Regards,

Max

If we are smart about radically moving away from oil and reserving the remaining reserves for the most important uses then we could have some reasonable supply of oil continuing into the next century but I doubt we will be that smart.

You wrote: "It may always be part of the energy mix but you can't get a few hundred nuclear plants built in the next five years which is when I expect the real wakeup call to the oil crisis to hit."

Who knows if your pessimistic prediction is right or not?

If the "greenies" keep opposing new nuclear plants (and the authorities are stupid enough to let this happen), we may indeed get into a "crunch" some time in the future (not the "next five years", but a few years later).

The smart countries (like France) will become major power exporters, while the less astute ones (run by "greenies") like Germany will be the net losers.

Many European countries are already considering quietly removing the mandated ban on nuclear energy.  

What the USA will do is still an open question, as long as you have the environmental activist groups with their lawyers trying to stop any new nuclear plants due to "Three Mile Island" and "Chernobyl" hysteria.

But I am a bit more optimistic on the future than you appear to be.

Of course, we will both tell each other that we are being "realistic", while the other is not so, but history shows that things usually get resolved through common sense solutions before there is a major disaster.

So cheer up and don't fall into the trap of relying on major taxes to solve any problems.  They don't.

Regards,

Max