Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 25, 2012
The Peak Oil Crisis:The End Game
It is becoming clearer all the time that mankind is approaching a major turning point in its tenure on this planet. Recent reports on the speed with which our climate is deteriorating suggest that much of our earth will become uninhabitable sometime within the next 100 to 200 years. Small pockets of humanoid DNA may make it through the climatic catastrophe ahead to establish new civilizations in coming millennia; however, very few of the some 7 billion of us running around on earth today are going to have living descendants a few hundred years from now.
Without going into the myriad of details, the new reports forecast that the temperatures will get very high; the oceans will flood the coasts and no longer contain much fish; pandemics will be prevalent; and the storms will be so fierce that there simply will not be enough food or habitable areas to keep us all going.
As recently as five years ago we badly underestimated just how quickly climate change would seriously affect civilization as we know it. The reason the climate problem has become more serious in recent years is that nobody has done anything of real significance to control carbon emissions since the problem was recognized 20 some years ago. Moreover, there is no indication that any of the earth’s major carbon emitters are planning to do anything but keep emitting the same or still more carbon in the foreseeable future
We, our children or grandchildren are likely to be living on a world where atmospheric carbon hits 800 to 1000 parts per million and higher – far worse than had been forecast as likely in previous studies. New analyses, while varying in numbers, put global temperatures by the end of the century some 9o to 11o F higher in the mid-latitudes and 20o higher in the arctic leading to sea levels that would flood most of the world’s coastal cities. Some studies even have temperatures 13-19o F higher over much of the US and 27o higher over the arctic. Sea levels could be as much as six feet higher by the end of the century and then rise as much as a foot each decade thereafter to 20 or 30 feet.
As these misfortunes will build up gradually over the rest of the century, somewhere along the line, be it 5, 10 or 50 years from now, climate change will become so harmful to everyday life that a critical mass of people will coalesce around the idea that anything, even giving up “economic growth”, would be better than letting life on earth dry up around us. Whether the day of taking carbon emissions seriously comes before the fabled “tipping point” where the forces of nature take over and drive temperatures ever higher, remains to be seen. Some serious observers believe that day has already past. If so, there is not really much left to do except carve our history in granite in case some successor or extraterrestrial life form comes along before our tectonic plates sub duct below the planet’s surface.
Assuming however that we still have some choice regarding atmospheric carbon left, and that mankind decides to become serious, what can be done? It should be noted that sometime during the rest of the century emissions of fossil fuels will slow of their own accord simply because that which is left cannot be extracted economically or the global economy has fallen into such a state that the demand will not be there.
Except for those with vested interest in the immediate future of the fossil fuel industry and those politicians who see an advantage in denying that global warming is caused by carbon emissions, the rest of us should hold that carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels need to be halted worldwide, as soon as possible.
Now deliberately halting the combustion of fossil fuels is a rather tall order, since some 80 percent of the world’s energy comes from oil, coal, and natural gas, with the rest from nuclear, biofuels and renewables. While some reduction in fossil fuel consumption, let’s say a third or maybe a half, might be accomplished in the short term by draconian efforts and regulation, if we can agree that it is necessary, the costs in terms of social and economic disruptions would be considerable.
Moving beyond say a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions would involve giving up much in terms of energy-provided luxuries, and massive investment in renewable energy projects required to hold together the complex urban societies that have grown up in the last 200 years.
There is, however, one other way out of this mess and that is new and exotic forms of energy. The most promising of these at the moment is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Validations that this phenomenon is real are coming in each month so that a clean and inexpensive replacement for fossil fuels looks possible. The problem, of course, is that it is a long and time-consuming trip from the lab bench to replacing a sufficient share of fossil fuel burning devices to stopping the buildup of atmospheric carbon. Interestingly, there seem to be a number of even more exotic sources of energy under development which their inventors say will be a source of cheap renewable non-polluting energy. For now however, LENR devices, which have been under development for over 20 years, seem to be the most promising candidates to replace carbon emitting devices – if there is still time.
Somewhere along the line this discussion of just where the carbon emissions problem is taking us becomes a theological one — with the question being “Is it time for our tiny corner of the universe to shut down – either temporarily or permanently?”
23 Comments on "The Peak Oil Crisis:The End Game"
BillT on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 1:24 am
I was saying Yes! Yes! Yes! all through this article until I got to the dream of a nuclear savior. Then it went into the same propaganda bin as all the other dreams of techies saving us from ourselves. We have already drank the cool aid and are now laying on the beach waiting for the curtain to come down over our civilization. Our remnants, with the possible exception of some massive dams, will not even survive as long as the pyramids.
Plantagenet on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 1:49 am
The techno fix lives. Lets pump the excess CO2 down from the atmosphere and fix the climate, and lets build safe nukes to run our society.
I want a cool flying car like they had on the Jetsons!
Henry Andre on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 1:53 am
OMG. What a bunch of speculative balderdash! The problem with the global warming bunch is that they have lied and covered up data that conflicts with their premise to the point they have no credibility with me. The earth has not warmed since 1997! Many people have predicted dire doom for us and other predictions and they have been wrong. Certainly there will be plenty of tough times ahead but to make assertions as if you know it to be fact is ridiculous.
BillT on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 3:14 am
Dream on Planet. ^_^
SilentRunning on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 3:18 am
LENR – aka “cold fusion”. Almost certainly a pipe dream. I remember hearing about it way back in ’89 – still no “Mr. Fusion” machines – nor have I heard of anyone who heats their home with this wonder-device.
Steve on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 3:19 am
Please follow the logic:
a) Incontrovertible evidence that dumping billions of tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere will cause planet-changing events, not likely to be friendly to human civilization. Billions likely to die if current trend-lines left to continue over the next 100-200 years.
b) Billions of tons of CO2 emissions represent trillions of kWh of useful work humans find necessary to go about their daily business each year.
c) Nuclear power can produce trillions of kWh of continuous, on-demand power without emissions per year, sustainable for millennia, and its waste stream is solid hence easily immobilized and prevented from entering the environment. Moreover, its waste stream is in absolute quantity millions of times less than that of fossil fuels because the amount of energy delivered per unit mass is orders of magnitude more (i.e. energy per fission vs. energy per oxidation event is approx 50000000:1). Since the amount of waste, and fuel, is so much less, the amount of environmental destruction due to mining and waste disposal is similarly orders of magnitude smaller.
LOGICAL CONCLUSION: nuclear power is the best possible option available to maintain, AND INCREASE, levels of energy available to humanity while minimizing environmental destruction to the greatest possible extent known to science, i.e. 50000000 times less per unit energy released.
[note: the casualty count due to radiation from Fukushima is zero, and expected to likely remain that or very close to it. THIS being the biggest nuclear disaster in more than a GENERATION versus countless thousands that die due to fossil fuel use EVERY YEAR, when used as intended. Give your head a SHAKE people]
Anyone with one shred of scientific or intellectual integrity MUST agree that nuclear energy is the only path forward IF ONE AGREES WE SHOULD provide energy abundance (hence reasonable chance of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for billions of humans) without destroying the planet. Next generation nuclear with 100 times the fuel economy over wasteful light-water reactors, with fully passive safety features, is THE option every thinking, scientifically literate person should be DEMANDING from our institutions. STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS NOW, and replace with a sustainable, safe, nuclear electric economy.
To anyone that disagrees with this …. logic tells me you are either scientifically illiterate, or one who agrees that the destruction of humanity would be a good thing via energy starvation or climate catastrophe or war for limited energy resources (see: middle-east wars for control of remaining oil supplies. Iraq: the prequel…).
I would be thrilled to learn that we have other alternatives for energy abundance with environmental sustainability… I see none that are practical nor truly sustainable short of going back to an agrarian civilization that lives on natural energy flows delivered by plants, animals and water. Such will necessitate the removal of billions of excess humans from the face of the earth by war and/or famine to match populations that were sustainable in the past under such levels of energy poverty.
I do not wish to bequeath such horror on my descendants.
Energy wealth based on scientific knowledge and *intellectual honesty* is the best path forward.
Bloomer on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 3:39 am
Thorium Molten-Salt Reactors would give us the safe non-polluting power that we need. Unfortunately, we have a world where the balance of power belongs to those who are quite content with the status-quo carbon economy.
DC on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 7:13 am
Lol. Thorium reactors are not safe, or non-polluting. At best, they will be slightly less toxic than what we have now, if anyone ever gets around to actually trying to prove that theory by, you know, building one. And if they do, all they will learn is its a different type of bad idea.
As for cold fusion, even if these so-called LENR were to occur, the very idea if will run wall-mart and disney-land is questionable.
I mean a LOW ENERGZY reaction, is going to produce, guess what, low energy. Otherwise, we call it HIGH ENERGY nuclear reactions. O wait, we have all-ready have those. We call them 3-mile island, Cherynobyl and now Fukishima. Cept those HE reactions didnt work out so well. Low energy reactions probably be mildly toxic too, and not produce any measureable energy.
Where do I sigh up!
Frank Kling on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 7:43 am
Hears hoping small pockets of human DNA will not survive. The Earth must purge itself of this pernicious parasite known as mankind. Plenty of time remains for another intelligent and hopefully wiser life form to emerge.
Mankind is a dead end.
Cloud9 on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 10:50 am
Frank, don’t look in the mirror.
SOS on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 10:58 am
This alarmist article is funny in one regard: The hell predicted is just far enough into the future so there will be no accountability for their nonsense and just close enough in time for pudding heads to believe they can save the world by delivering money and power to these master manipulators .
SOS on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 11:02 am
Steve, not a lot of logical thinkers here. Emotions rule the day. Frank stands as the example to support my point.
BillT on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 12:03 pm
SOS, sanity is not proven by your comments either…lol. These are pipe dreams put out by techies who cannot accept that their world is not going to last and they might be one of the last generations of homo-sapiens to inhabit this world. We have passed the point of no return. No animal pollutes their nest, except humans. We have chosen to commit slow suicide by technology.
Newfie on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 12:11 pm
Give the guy some damn credit for putting the issue on the table. Maybe LENR is not possible, but at least he has some understanding of what is at stake. That is a good start and far ahead of most.
Newfie on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 12:49 pm
Someone has usurped my moniker!
Malarchy on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 1:25 pm
To replace the electricity currently produced by oil, coal and gas would need an extra 4000 or more average nuclear reactors. Want them on line within 20 years? Then start building now: 4 each week should do it, not including the initial four year planning time. Total cost $100 trillion minimum, not allowing for inflation and other energy costs. By which time of course we’ll be well into peak uranium. Can’t see it happening any time soon.
Beery on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 2:29 pm
“We call them 3-mile island, Cherynobyl and now Fukishima.”
Let’s not forget the first – Windscale.
Arthur on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 2:40 pm
The car should be declared public enemy #1.
Post this again to illustrate what is the real issue here:
– iPad = 3 Watt
– new lightbulb 15 Watt = 60 Watt old style lightbulb
– state-of-the-art isolated fridge = 50 Watt
– laptop = 60 Watt
– flat screen TV = 100 Watt
– average European family car = 75,000 Watt
GregT on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 6:28 pm
I believe that we are missing one very important point here.
Even if we could come up with a replacement for fossil fuels, what would we use this energy for? To extract more finite resources? To continue to grow human population and economic activities? To continue to destroy our one and only habitat?
Our current predicament can be attributed to one thing, cheap energy. To find another source will only create more problems and will do little to solve the issues that we currently face.
BillT on Fri, 26th Oct 2012 2:35 am
Bingo GregT!
Arthur on Fri, 26th Oct 2012 10:25 am
“Even if we could come up with a replacement for fossil fuels, what would we use this energy for? To extract more finite resources?”
When I was younger I loved to go camping with a few friends. Backpack of 23 kg, tent, sleeping bags… oh and brandy, lot’s of 😉
We even did that on Christmas time, in the mountains of Spain, in the snow, with minus twenty degrees Celcius.
But this is only fun if you know that you can return to the warm fuzzy light world fuelled by energy, regardless from what source.
Try it, live for a week without spending a single kilowatthour and you will remember what energy is good for.
BillT on Fri, 26th Oct 2012 11:11 am
Ask anyone who has lost power for a few days or a week due to a winter storm, as I and my family have several times and, yes, you do appreciate ‘energy’. But…it also tells you that you can exist without it. And…with a little preparation it can actually be enjoyable. Peace and quiet. No demands to be somewhere at a set time. No noise from TV, and the other I-toys. No distractions from the business of living.
I look forward to the day when we have enough to make a few chores easier, like water to the tap and electric lights. All else can be done without and would not be much different from the 1800s in most of the world.
Kenz300 on Fri, 26th Oct 2012 2:15 pm
The time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy sources is NOW.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/when-should-we-pursue-energy-transition/159