Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 21, 2016
Energy at any cost?
If all else is uncertain, how can growing demand for energy be guaranteed? A review of Vaclav Smil’s Natural Gas.
Near the end of his 2015 book Natural Gas: Fuel for the 21st Century, Vaclav Smil makes two statements which are curious in juxtaposition.
On page 211, he writes:
I will adhere to my steadfast refusal to engage in any long-term forecasting, but I will restate some basic contours of coming development before I review a long array of uncertainties ….”
And in the next paragraph:
Given the scale of existing energy demand and the inevitability of its further growth, it is quite impossible that during the twenty-first century, natural gas could come to occupy such a dominant position in the global primary energy supply as wood did in the preindustrial era or as coal did until the middle of the twentieth century.”
If you think that second statement sounds like a long-term forecast, that makes two of us. But apparently to Smil it is not a forecast to say that the growth of energy demand is inevitable, and it’s not a forecast to state with certainty that natural gas cannot become the dominant energy source during the twenty-first century – these are simply “basic contours of coming development.” Let’s investigate.
An oddly indiscriminate name
Natural Gas is a general survey of the sources and uses of what Smil calls the fuel with “an oddly indiscriminate name”. It begins much as it ends: with a strongly-stated forecast (or “basic contour”, if you prefer) about the scale of natural gas and other fossil fuel usage relative to other energy sources.
why dwell on the resources of a fossil fuel and why extol its advantages at a time when renewable fuels and decentralized electricity generation converting solar radiation and wind are poised to take over the global energy supply. That may be a fashionable narrative – but it is wrong, and there will be no rapid takeover by the new renewables. We are a fossil-fueled civilization, and we will continue to be one for decades to come as the pace of grand energy transition to new forms of energy is inherently slow.” – Vaclav Smil, preface to Natural Gas
And in the next paragraph:
Share of new renewables in the global commercial primary energy supply will keep on increasing, but a more consequential energy transition of the coming decades will be from coal and crude oil to natural gas.”
In support of his view that a transition away from fossil fuel reliance will take at least several decades, Smil looks at major energy source transitions over the past two hundred years. These transitions have indeed been multi-decadal or multi-generational processes.
Obvious absence of any acceleration in successive transitions is significant: moving from coal to oil has been no faster than moving from traditional biofuels to coal – and substituting coal and oil by natural gas has been measurably slower than the two preceding shifts.” – Natural Gas, page 154
It would seem obvious that global trade and communications were far less developed 150 years ago, and that would be one major reason why the transition from traditional biofuels to coal proceeded slowly on a global scale. Smil cites another reason why successive transitions have been so slow:
Scale of the requisite transitions is the main reason why natural gas shares of the TPES [Total Primary Energy System] have been slower to rise: replicating a relative rise needs much more energy in a growing system. … going from 5 to 25% of natural gas required nearly eight times more energy than accomplishing the identical coal-to-oil shift.” – Natural Gas, page 155
Open-pit coal mine in south-east Saskatchewan. June 2014.
Today only – you’ll love our low, low prices!
There is another obvious reason why transitions from coal to oil, and from oil to natural gas, could have been expected to move slowly throughout the last 100 years: there have been abundant supplies of easily accessible, and therefore cheap, coal and oil. When a new energy source was brought online, the result was a further increase in total energy consumption, instead of any rapid shift in the relative share of different sources.
The role of price in influencing demand is easy to ignore when the price is low. But that’s not a condition we can count on for the coming decades.
Returning to Smil’s “basic contour” that total energy demand will inevitably rise, that would imply that energy prices will inevitably remain relatively low – because there is effective demand for a product only to the extent that people can afford to buy it.
Remarkably, however, even as he states confidently that demand must grow, Smil notes the major uncertainty about the investment needed simply to maintain existing levels of supply:
if the first decade of the twenty-first century was a trendsetter, then all fossil energy sources will cost substantially more, both to develop new capacities and to maintain production of established projects at least at today’s levels. … The IEA estimates that between 2014 and 2035, the total investment in energy supply will have to reach just over $40 trillion if the world is to meet the expected demand, with some 60% destined to maintain existing output and 40% to supply the rising requirements. The likelihood of meeting this need will be determined by many other interrelated factors.” – Natural Gas, page 212
What is happening here? Both Smil and the IEA are cognizant of the uncertain effects of rising prices on supply, while graphing demand steadily upward as if price has no effect. This is not how economies function in the real world, of course.
Likewise, we cannot assume that because total energy demand kept rising throughout the twentieth century, it must continue to rise through the twenty-first century. On the contrary, if energy supplies are difficult to access and therefore much more costly, then we should also expect demand to grow much more slowly, to stop growing, or to fall.
Falling demand, in turn, would have a major impact on the possibility of a rapid change in the relative share of demand met by different sources. In very simple terms, if we increased total supply of renewable energy rapidly (as we are doing now), but the total energy demand were dropping rapidly, then the relative share of renewables in the energy market could increase even more rapidly.
Smil’s failure to consider such a scenario (indeed, his peremptory dismissal of the possibility of such a scenario) is one of the major weaknesses of his approach. Acceptance of business-as-usual as a reliable baseline may strike some people as conservative. But there is nothing cautious about ignoring one of the fundamental factors of economics, and nothing safe in assuming that the historically rare condition of abundant cheap energy must somehow continue indefinitely.
In closing, just a few words about the implications of Smil’s work as it relates to the threat of climate change. In Natural Gas, he provides much valuable background on the relative amounts of carbon emissions produced by all of our major energy sources. He explains why natural gas is the best of the fossil fuels in terms of energy output relative to carbon emissions (while noting that leaks of natural gas – methane – could in fact outweigh the savings in carbon emissions). He explains that the carbon intensity of our economies has dropped as we have gradually moved from coal to oil to natural gas.
But he also makes it clear that this relative decarbonisation has been far too slow to stave off the threat of climate change.
If he turns out to be right that total energy demand will keep rising, that there will only be a slow transition from other fossil fuels to natural gas, and that the transition away from all fossil fuels will be slower still, then the chances of avoiding catastrophic climate change will be slim indeed.
24 Comments on "Energy at any cost?"
peakyeast on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 3:09 pm
As apneaman has documented: The influence of CO2 already released is not here yet since there is a significant lag between release and effect. – AND the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time.
Besides that our icerecords shows constant climate change – and the period we are in now is to be seen as a brief anomaly between iceages.
There is absolutely ZERO chance of human civilisation smoothening out the natural variations nor the variations from our own activities at a level where it will matter.
Apneaman on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 4:29 pm
Wouldn’t matter if we stopped today. We have triggered too many positive self reinforcing feedbacks. The pace and amount of human emissions still dwarfs the feedbacks from sequestered CO2 and methane, but the pace is increasing and is non linear. The warmer it gets the faster they go and the faster they go the warmer it gets. There is no way to stop them.
How many feedbacks are there?
Well, since you asked I’ll provide a link to a list of them compiled by Guy McPherson. No need to share any of his opinions or beliefs. It’s all peer reviewed work and current measurements from a variety of scientific instrumentation. Better make popcorn – long list.
Self-Reinforcing Feedback Loops (Part 2 of 3)
http://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/self-reinforcing-feedback-loops-2/
Plantagenet on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 6:22 pm
After we reach peak oil, the amount of oil available is going to start decreasing. No doubt TPTB will look for an alternative energy source, and NG is most likely what they will choose. You could see this process starting when Obama campaigned in 2012 on the claim that we have a “100-year-long supply of natural gas” thanks to fracking.
Cheers!
geopressure on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 6:31 pm
Peak Oil is still al long way off… We are only a few years away from 100 Million BOPD… Then 105, 110, & so on… The Earth can deliver…
makati1 on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 6:45 pm
ROFLMAO The Glutters are still in the mindset of the last century. It must be difficult/painful to be locked into a career and/or investments that are as obsolete as the buggy whip. You know who you are…
Practicalmaina on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 7:12 pm
Haaaaa
makati1 on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 8:03 pm
“In total, there are 200 reactors worldwide due to be shut down by 2025.
But while the primary task of the current decommissioning programme is to make reactors safe by removing their old fuel and storing it, one of the major problems of the industry is nowhere near solved.
All over the world, governments have tried and failed to find sites where they can store the vast quantities of radioactive waste that has arisen from nuclear weapons programs, nuclear submarine and ship propulsion systems, and the civil nuclear industry. The waste needs to be isolated from human beings for as much as 250,000 years to make it safe.”
http://climatenewsnetwork.net/nuclear-costs-in-uncharted-territory/
“The market for decommissioning nuclear sites is unbelievably large. Sixteen nations in Europe alone face a €253 billion waste bill, and the continent has only just begun to tackle the problem.”
And the beat goes on….
GregT on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 8:04 pm
“After we reach peak oil, the amount of oil available is going to start decreasing. No doubt TPTB will look for an alternative energy source”
They didn’t have to look very far. The industry has been well aware of shale oil for a very long time. Hubbert even estimated in his 1956 paper that some 2.5 trillion barrels of oil could be extracted from shale.
Unfortunately the economy cannot afford $80+ bbl/oil. Even $40/bbl is too high for economic recovery.
makati1 on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 8:08 pm
‘Poland’s government is trying to pass a law that would crush the country’s wind-power industry”
“SunEdison files for bankruptcy protection”
“What Will California Do With Too Much Solar?”
“Hundreds Of European Wind Turbines Are Operating At A Loss”
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.fr/
And the beat goes on…
penury on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 8:14 pm
Energy at any cost. Will be the theme of choice as the depletion becomes evident. Review Short on Oils facts on energy content of the current product and think what that will mean if it continues a downward spiral, fewer slaves at a much higher cost.
GregT on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 8:21 pm
“fewer slaves at a much higher cost.”
We can expect a much lower standard of living, once extend and pretend finally runs it’s course. Not very far off into the future.
claman on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 9:37 pm
Makati: Here at home we recently had a debate about “deep depositing of nuclear waste”(2-3 miles deep), which turned out to be a good idea, if it hadn’t been for some nuclear heads considering the nuclear waste a future resource, and therefore a big waste of money to bury it underground.
I’m convinced that with todays drilling knowledge and capacity, we could get rid of the stuff pretty fast.
Davy on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 9:43 pm
How about chemicals at any cost and the cost of that to people’s health.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-21/hundreds-chinese-children-mysteriously-fall-ill-suffering-nose-bleeds-rashes-coughin
claman on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 9:55 pm
Davy: What you mentioned there is just a part of the great die off. These chemicals can’t be disposed of – they will be there for generations. Nuclear waste on the other hand is still concentrated on protected locations and is manageble and can be buried – if the will is there.
GregT on Thu, 21st Apr 2016 10:21 pm
Frequently Asked Questions: Leaking underground tanks at Hanford
Department of Ecology, State of Washington
1) How many tanks are leaking and when did they start?
One double-shell tank (DST) AY-102, was first reported to be leaking in October 2012.
Note that 67 tanks leaked at least one million gallons in the past.
2) What is the threat to public health?
No immediate or near-term health risks are associated with Hanford’s tank leaks.
Hanford’s groundwater is about 200 to 300 feet below the tanks, so the new leaks will take decades to reach it.
3) What are the options for dealing with leaking tanks?
The single-shell tanks (SSTs) are all unfit for use and decades past their design life. It would be impossible to repair and upgrade the SSTs to meet current regulatory standards.
4) How are the tanks monitored?
Monitoring of the tank waste is difficult in part due to the high radiation and harsh chemical environment inside most tanks. Access to the insides of the tanks is limited.
For tanks with liquid observation wells, a neutron probe is used quarterly to gather data. It was a look at long term trends of that data — something USDOE had never done before — that led to the conclusion there must be new leaks.
9) If the waste is pumped out of the tanks, where will it go? Don’t you need additional storage space? If so, how much time and money is it going to take to build new tanks?
A shortage of space in Hanford’s double-shell tanks is a concern, especially because one of them is leaking. Ecology is not convinced that current storage is adequate to meet legal and regulatory requirements for tank retrievals and Waste Treatment Plant operations.
The state and the federal governments must have a thorough and candid discussion about the need for additional storage tanks. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) estimates that it could take a minimum of 7 to 10 years and cost around $100 million per tank to build new tanks. But we can’t wait that long. We will be working with USDOE to consider options for accelerating that process.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/sections/tankwaste/closure/pages/tank_leak_FAQ.html
makati1 on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 12:54 am
claman, I think it requires a geologically stable area with the right rock formations and they are rare anywhere in the world. How do you get the ~80 thousand tons of debris 2-3 miles underground in those areas without destabilizing the area and at a reasonable cost? We are talking solids, not liquids that can be pumped down a pipe. We are talking maybe a few cubic miles of waste, not a few truck loads.
~70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rod assemblies are now in storage across the US. This does not count the thousands of tons of other nuclear waste that also needs care and storage. We are talking multi-billions, maybe trillions of dollars to do this even IF they find a suitable place and the years it would take to prepare the site and move all of the debris across the country.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42513.pdf
Now do you understand why it has not happened? Not to mention the NIMBY problem. (Not In My Back Yard)
Apneaman on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 2:51 am
At any cost…..
Atmospheric CO2 Leaps into Uncharted Territory: 408 ppm
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/atmospheric-co2-leaps-into-uncharted-territory-408-ppm
Dredd on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 4:29 am
” … how can growing demand for energy be guaranteed …” ??
First off, poison is not demanded nor called “energy” by sane civilizations.
So, stop using propaganda to make people believe insane things.
IOW, disgorge the BS (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement).
onlooker on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 5:38 am
http://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/
Notice a line with the link that reads as follows: Gradual change is not guaranteed, as pointed out by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in December 2013: “The history of climate on the planet — as read in archives such as tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores — is punctuated with large changes that occurred rapidly, over the course of decades to as little as a few years.”
Kenz300 on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 7:09 am
Nuclear energy is poisoning the planet…………
5 Years After Fukushima, ‘No End in Sight’ to Ecological Fallout
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/05/5-years-after-fukushima/
Kenz300 on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 7:09 am
Wind and solar are the future…..fossil fuels are the past……….
Climate Change is real…… utilities need to deal with the cause (fossil fuels)
100% electric transportation and 100% solar by 2030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k
onlooker on Fri, 22nd Apr 2016 7:22 am
All these energy conundrums simply point out the fact that no easy solutions exist to keep powering civilization. But the really foreboding issue is that we need to keep powering civilization to keep all the people we have on Earth alive, fed, medically treated, entertained, sheltered, clothed, transported etc. So, Wind and Solar would have been preferable to anything we have now. But we had to have constructed that infrastructure before we reached this humongous population or at least before peak oil. So we are left with little flexibility and with having to continue to power civilization with GHG. What a MESS humanity has made of our existence on Earth!
dooma on Sat, 23rd Apr 2016 3:53 am
Fracking is completely safe…
Typical lies from petroleum companies as per usual.
Check this link out as a man sets fire to a river in Australia!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-23/condamine-river-bubbling-methane-gas-set-alight-greens-mp/7352578
geopressure on Sat, 23rd Apr 2016 4:53 am
That’s perfectly natural… Methane seeps out of the ground all over the world & is prone to doing so in/around rivers which often follow fault systems or Grabens…
My God, people are so uneducated that they will believe anything they see or hear, provided that it is negative about the oil & gas industry…
Dooma; Don’t let people control your thoughts, opinions, & beliefs… Educate yourself…