News When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[Al68]

I've seen estimates ranging between 80 years and 500 years.

For all practical purposes, relatively cheap uranium supply is unlimited. Most sources are just not used because uranium is so plentiful and cheap to obtain from open-mining. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Recovery_from_seawater" contains 3.3 mg/m^3 uranium. Very low uranium prices prevent that from being cost effective ($240-300/kg) using current methods, and very little research has been done to evaluate better ways to concentrate it for the same reason. And that virtually unlimited supply is but a fraction of the total, and I only mention it to make the point: we live on a very uranium-rich planet.

Again, the cost of nuclear power is driven by construction and operating costs, which are driven by safety and national security concerns. The amount of uranium easily and cheaply obtainable is orders of magnitude greater than we could ever use to meet any foreseeable demand. Like I said before, if we ever improved nuclear technology to the point where uranium supply drove the cost, household electricity would be too cheap to meter.

 

[Al68]

...and Republicans want Darwin, Reagan, and Goldwater genetically merged into an Uber-president.

Nah, just Goldwater would do very nicely.

 

[apeiron]

The amount of uranium easily and cheaply obtainable is orders of magnitude greater than we could ever use to meet any foreseeable demand.

What is your source for this claim? Do you have some peer-reviewed reference you can supply?

 

[Al68]

What is your source for this claim? Do you have some peer-reviewed reference you can supply?

Well, that's more of a gross understatement than a claim IMO, but no, I don't have a peer-reviewed reference. I gave my more than adequate source in that post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining.

The only reason all those other sources of uranium aren't used is because it's too cheap now to open-mine to even bother with other sources. Even concentrating uranium from seawater is fairly cheap, and if you do the math at 3.3 mg/m^3, I think you will agree that plentiful is an understatement. And we haven't even bothered with R&D to make that much cheaper because it's so plentiful from other sources.

Edit: Here's a paper in the http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf" that says uranium from seawater, using fast breeder reactors, would economically last at least 5 billion years. My claim was apparently far too modest.

 

[apeiron]

Even concentrating uranium from seawater is fairly cheap, and if you do the math at 3.3 mg/m^3, I think you will agree that plentiful is an understatement.

Given that the recovery process has only been demonstrated at the experimental level and the scaling up to commercial production is untested, I would say you could be risking overstatement.

It is like getting x60 more out of uranium with fast breeders. Or shifting to thorium. The ideas are attractive, but still to be proven in practice.

This does not mean I think the prospects aren't good, just that everything needs to be kept in perspective and judged on the best evidence available.

This could be one such summary (which does argue uranium supply is not an issue in any immediate sense)...

http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/uranium/673.asp

 

[Al68]

Given that the recovery process has only been demonstrated at the experimental level and the scaling up to commercial production is untested, I would say you could be risking overstatement.

Nope, still huge understatement. The $240-300/kg "experimental" cost should get much cheaper if scaled up, it certainly wouldn't get more expensive. Common sense says potentially much, much cheaper, but that's just speculation.

But even that number is reasonably cheap by fossil fuel standards, it's just not economical compared to other, cheaper uranium sources.

It is like getting x60 more out of uranium with fast breeders.

OK, what's 5 billion years divided by 60 (or 100?)? We are obviously not going to run out of atoms to split in the foreseeable future, regardless of the details.

 

[mheslep]

Ooh, some action on renewables and subsidies from that nice Mr Obama...

To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6 billion in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2 billion over a decade.

Thanks for this. Repeal of fossile subsidies is well overdue. I hope these cuts pass. I do have one reservation, in that there's a game the government has played with industry over the years: with one hand the government bashes the energy industry over the head by encouraging or allowing frivolous law suits and regulation, and then when recognizing the same industry is responsible for jobs and critically needed energy, the same government hands out subsidies with the other hand. The point is that when the subsidies go, and they should, attention should by paid to industry harassment as well.

But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.

Really? Many, unnamed Republicans, in this Reuters article.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thanks for this. Repeal of fossile subsidies is well overdue. I hope these cuts pass. I do have one reservation, in that there's a game the government has played with industry over the years: with one hand the government bashes the energy industry over the head by encouraging or allowing frivolous law suits and regulation, and then when recognizing the same industry is responsible for jobs and critically needed energy, the same government hands out subsidies with the other hand. The point is that when the subsidies go, and they should, attention should by paid to industry harassment as well.

Really? Many, unnamed Republicans, in this Reuters article.

Are you making an argument for fairness in government and business, and then beyond that, is a Reuters no longer a valid source for P&WA? If "unnamed R/D/I, official, aide" is no longer valid from a generally trusted source, there's going to be very little to talk about.

I agree with the cuts, but which frivolous lawsuits do you mean... there are are lot lawsuits past and present in that arena, and not all are frivolous. It would probably help to know which you consider to be, and which you believe are valid, if any.

Other than a sense of wounded feelings, which I think the energy industry can handle, I'm not hearing any material damages put forth. Profits... plenty of those, but not a lot of damages.

 

[mheslep]

A PF valid news source is basis for argument. That doesn't mean the source is beyond question or somehow infallible.

 

[nismaratwork]

A PF valid news source is basis for argument. That doesn't mean the source is beyond question or somehow infallible.

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"? That's pretty much standard fare from a wire source and this kind of information. Asking for a better source, sure, but Reuters is what it is.

I'd add, if it's basis for an argument, maybe you'd be better served by addressing its content, or challenging its veracity outright, not side-stepping it.

 

[mheslep]

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"?

Just what I said. The article did not name any Republicans, nor even use an unnamed source. Your bit about unnamed "aids" above is imaginary; there's no source what so ever in that article claiming any kind of direct knowledge of lawmakers minds. The author just asserts.

Back to the topic ... peak fossil fuels.

 

[nismaratwork]

Just what I said. The article did not name any Republicans, nor even use an unnamed source. Your bit about unnamed "aids" above is imaginary; there's no source what so ever in that article claiming any kind of direct knowledge of lawmakers minds. The author just asserts.

Back to the topic ... peak fossil fuels.

To be clear, the bit about aides was not related to THIS, but a generalization. Besides, isn't this how politics is conducted through the media in general?

So... DO Republicans support cuts to fossil fuel subsidies, because if so, I can understand why you'd be so annoyed at a Reuters line. If it's just an illustration of a well understood and long-held position on the other hand, I think that would just be rhetorical and not entirely forthright. Still, as you say, peak fossil fuels:

Given the power of fossil fuel lobbies in congress, is it realistic to believe that we'll be more successful in reducing them than with farming subsidies?

 

[apeiron]

Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d

as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines.[29]

It is the financial returns on their activities that motivate oil companies to make the major investments necessary to find and produce oil. There is a long time lag between investment and return, and so price stability is a necessary condition for further investment.

Here was a conundrum: low prices killed future supply, while high prices killed immediate demand. Only if oil’s price stayed reliably within a narrow—and narrowing—“Goldilocks” band could serious problems be avoided. Prices had to stay not too high, not too low—just right—in order to avert economic mayhem.

So the question is how laisser faire economic policies can fix these kinds of systemic problems? Market behaviour gets locked into a fixed point attractor until at some stage the buffers are hit. A market unable to correct itself gets "corrected" in much the same way as a drunk driver on a windy road.

Cornucopians claim that technology and substitution always gallop to the rescue of markets. This is why free markets work. But what is the model for a market locked into a state by larger forces? Where is the theory that would introduce rationality to longterm behaviour in such a market.

Industry subsidies would be one of the symptoms of the actual "market forces" at work. Along with a resistance to fuel taxes. And military budgets, etc.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies is of course a good idea both if you are a peak oiler, or simply a free market purist. But if the diagnosis is correct - there are tight constraints on the free functioning of the fossil fuel market, it is in almost everyone's near term interests to manipulate the market - then any action that causes a price rise will find itself by some other action to force it back down.

And consequently there will be no money going into the development of substitutes (nuclear for instance) and little voluntary efficiency measures.

Perhaps someone can find a cornucopian modelling of this situation. Maybe it can be argued that what we should expect is a chaotic phase followed by a swift transition to some new economic attractor. We will be in for a rough few decades, a time when a succession of crashes results eventually in that new mix of efficiency and new "cheap" fuel sources, but then sail out the other side with an economy that prices in its fuel at a different long-run level.

Where are these optimistic, but realistic, cornucopian models when you need them?

 

[nismaratwork]

Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d



So the question is how laisser faire economic policies can fix these kinds of systemic problems? Market behaviour gets locked into a fixed point attractor until at some stage the buffers are hit. A market unable to correct itself gets "corrected" in much the same way as a drunk driver on a windy road.

Cornucopians claim that technology and substitution always gallop to the rescue of markets. This is why free markets work. But what is the model for a market locked into a state by larger forces? Where is the theory that would introduce rationality to longterm behaviour in such a market.

Industry subsidies would be one of the symptoms of the actual "market forces" at work. Along with a resistance to fuel taxes. And military budgets, etc.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies is of course a good idea both if you are a peak oiler, or simply a free market purist. But if the diagnosis is correct - there are tight constraints on the free functioning of the fossil fuel market, it is in almost everyone's near term interests to manipulate the market - then any action that causes a price rise will find itself by some other action to force it back down.

And consequently there will be no money going into the development of substitutes (nuclear for instance) and little voluntary efficiency measures.

Perhaps someone can find a cornucopian modelling of this situation. Maybe it can be argued that what we should expect is a chaotic phase followed by a swift transition to some new economic attractor. We will be in for a rough few decades, a time when a succession of crashes results eventually in that new mix of efficiency and new "cheap" fuel sources, but then sail out the other side with an economy that prices in its fuel at a different long-run level.

Where are these optimistic, but realistic, cornucopian models when you need them?

re bolding mine: Oh, they would be in the circular file with Cold Fusion, Anything with the word "Over-unity" in it, a signed photograph of Ronald Reagan giving a thumbs up in a cowboy hat, and Everything Tesla said after he lost his marbles.

It seems to me that the faux-Libertarian model is just what you said... let the poor bastards (most of us) slam into a jersey barrier at speed... that'll teach 'em! The fact that a cleanup effort, towing the wreck, unintended victims, you know... Blowback... has that ever been an issue in, "Die Beste aller möglichen Welten?" Not that I can see, although that's one hell of a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance of actively participating in your own destruction.

I'm curious though, to me, your case is very convincing... BUT... what's the solution?

 

[Al68]

Fair enough, so what was your point in the "unnamed republicans"? That's pretty much standard fare from a wire source and this kind of information.

Standard fare, yes, but that assertion in the Reuters piece provided absolutely no information regarding the position of any politician, yet pretended to do so. It would rise to the level of hearsay if it provided a name and quote. Another issue is that the position of the "unnamed" politician is paraphrased, which may or may not accurately portray the actual position even if a name was provided.

...Besides, isn't this how politics is conducted through the media in general?...

Yes, for decades. That's how people are mislead and manipulated by media sources. That piece may or may not itself be misleading, but has no legitimate value for the purpose of determining any politician's position on the issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Standard fare, yes, but that assertion in the Reuters piece provided absolutely no information regarding the position of any politician, yet pretended to do so. It would rise to the level of hearsay if it provided a name and quote. Another issue is that the position of the "unnamed" politician is paraphrased, which may or may not accurately portray the actual position even if a name was provided.Yes, for decades. That's how people are mislead and manipulated by media sources. That piece may or may not itself be misleading, but has no legitimate value for the purpose of determining any politician's position on the issue.

I agree with that, but given that it's hardly a controversial or new position (see apeiron's post), I was a little taken-aback that mheslep felt that the content wasn't worth addressing, only the source.

 

[apeiron]

I'm curious though, to me, your case is very convincing... BUT... what's the solution?

My solution was to move me and my family to New Zealand .

The optimistic view among peak oilers is to point out that energy descent may mean going without a lot of consumer junk, a lot of life choices, but on the other hand, it could be psychologically healthier (physically too as we get back to working the land, cycling everywhere).

So the solution - as advocated by the transistion town movement - is get to know your neighbours, learn to grow, invest in quality tools, plant fruit and nut trees. Build resilience and know-how.

 

[nismaratwork]

My solution was to move me and my family to New Zealand .

The optimistic view among peak oilers is to point out that energy descent may mean going without a lot of consumer junk, a lot of life choices, but on the other hand, it could be psychologically healthier (physically too as we get back to working the land, cycling everywhere).

So the solution - as advocated by the transistion town movement - is get to know your neighbours, learn to grow, invest in quality tools, plant fruit and nut trees. Build resilience and know-how.

Yeah, I seriously considered moving once or twice myself. Good for you, and good for your family. Beyond that, it sounds like my view, but with the addition that you hope to survive, and I expect doom. I like your viewpoint more, but then, you have a family to care for and presumably age and experience on me. I hope I can settle on a view before I simply become misanthropic, because given your knowlege-base and conclusions, I'd be pretty terrified.

 

[apeiron]

I hope I can settle on a view before I simply become misanthropic, because given your knowlege-base and conclusions, I'd be pretty terrified.

On a personal level, what's the worst that can happen except that you will get to witness even more history being made?

Being alive at this precise moment in human history must be winning the ultimate jackpot. You get to see "what happened" to a species, as well as enjoy the likely highspot for understanding the reality within which this species arose. You just have to invent a life that maximises the opportunity presented.

For the kids though, it could be a bit of a bugger .

 

[nismaratwork]

On a personal level, what's the worst that can happen except that you will get to witness even more history being made?

That sounds pretty either really good, or like a curse! Still, I take your meaning.

Being alive at this precise moment in human history must be winning the ultimate jackpot. You get to see "what happened" to a species, as well as enjoy the likely highspot for understanding the reality within which this species arose. You just have to invent a life that maximises the opportunity presented.

For the kids though, it could be a bit of a bugger .

Well, I enjoy the lack of lice and other parasites, and sewerage and lamps are really fantastic. This "series of tubes" we're using right now isn't half bad either... then again, it deepens on what you want from a jackpot. It might have been a more peaceful life before it was conceivable that we might be in the process of systematically drowning in our own waste and stupidity. I think I can hear Voltaire laughing...

 

[apeiron]

The latest on what the oil companies are saying...

http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signposts.pdf

Shell says we need to be worried as we are about to enter the zone of extraordinary misery/opportunity.

Shell does not dwell on the reasons why the oil won't be there, but focuses on the geopolitical stress to be expected from developing nations expecting their fair share of the global economic cake.

Underlying global demand for energy by 2050 could triple from its 2000 level if
emerging economies follow historical patterns of development.
In broad-brush terms, natural innovation and competition could spur improvements
in energy efficiency to moderate underlying demand by about 20% over this
time. Ordinary rates of supply growth -- taking into account technological,
geological, competitive, financial and political realities -- could naturally boost
energy production by about 50%. But this still leaves a gap between businessas-
usual supply and business-as-usual demand of around 400 EJ/a – the size of
the whole industry in 2000.
This gap – this Zone of Uncertainty – will have to be bridged by some combination of
extraordinary demand moderation and extraordinary production acceleration.

So even with optimistic efficiency measures and optimistic supply growth, there is still a huge gap to be filled (or expect a very unhappy world with a demographics that pits the young, angry and populous against the old, weary and nervous).

 

[nismaratwork]

How very enlightened of them...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

"The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

 

[nismaratwork]

"The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.

There is no political will, no corporate motivation as a stake in anyone nation is no longer necessary in the long-run. As a society, I can't even imagine it until it's far too late... can you?

I think that's why we need a bridge: Nuclear, and even then I have my doubts.

 

[mheslep]

"The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

I don't see a cost total this time. When Jacobson came out with this proposal in 2009, his cost was $100 trillion worldwide over twenty years. For even just the US portion of such a plan, the cost is far more than the Apollo program with which he wants to compare.
2009 Version:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&print=true
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2543785&postcount=84

I believe Jacobson's view is coming inevitably, but in a different timescale than he imagines, say 2070, not his 2030, and for a lot less money (constant dollars).

 

[mheslep]

Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d

Here's another Heinberg appearance: a 911 Truther petition
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
See #45.

 

[apeiron]

Here's another Heinberg appearance: a 911 Truther petition
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
See #45.

Attacking the man rather than the argument again, hey?

 

[nismaratwork]

Attacking the man rather than the argument again, hey?

When there's nothing left... ad hominem. Another variation would be, "those who can't, ad hominem."

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't see a cost total this time. When Jacobson came out with this proposal in 2009, his cost was $100 trillion worldwide over twenty years. For even just the US portion of such a plan, the cost is far more than the Apollo program with which he wants to compare.
2009 Version:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&print=true
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2543785&postcount=84

I believe Jacobson's view is coming inevitably, but in a different timescale than he imagines, say 2070, not his 2030, and for a lot less money (constant dollars).

Basically, you believe anything that doesn't have this crisis occurring during your lifetime. That is indeed one very profound way to resolve cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, this strikes me as a fairly radical bet for conservatives, don't you?

True, Jacobson is dreaming, but if you added nuclear to the mix and spread out the impact and transiition... oh right, you still haven't adressed that idea. I'd add, if everyone judged the content of one anohter's writing by the views we held, how many people here would listen to you at all? I don't see the point of inserting a standard you wouldn't normally apply, which is obvious given a detailed perusal of your posting history.

So... nuclear taking over for Coal, while we focus on portable fuel sources... how much would that cut the 100 trillion USD estimate? Oh, and what would be a reasonable price for the entire world to make that transition in 20 years?

 

[apeiron]

So... nuclear taking over for Coal, while we focus on portable fuel sources... how much would that cut the 100 trillion USD estimate? Oh, and what would be a reasonable price for the entire world to make that transition in 20 years?

On the subject of peak coal, a reminder that that wacky conspiracy theorist Heinberg has been writing articles for that notorious crank rag Nature . His rantings would never pass peer review in any serious journal, etc, etc.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-18/fridley-heinberg-discuss-peak-coal-nature-journal