BigOl64 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:


BigOl64,
You may be interested in the following post from July 13th.

=============
Muso/freediver,
You may be interested in the following comments, from the World Coal Institute -

"It has been estimated that there are over 847 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 119 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 46 and 63 years at current production levels."
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/
===========
So, what we have above is the Coal industry saying there are 119 years of Coal left, Globally.

However, as I previously mentioned, there is usually a rider to these statements, saying "at Current levels" or as they have done here " at current rates of production".

So, let's add an "acceptable" rate of growth of say 5%, which means the current usage/production doubles in 14 years, then doubles again at the end of another 14 years.

That means that the Coal Industries own figure of 119 years, suddenly becomes 40 years or less, if only 5% growth becomes reality and China is currently going along at 10% growth, with the rest of the world in a slight decline, due to the GFC.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 2:08pm:


The previous post I referred to, which is from the World Coal Institute, refers to -

"It has been estimated that there are over 847 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide.

This means that there is enough coal to last us around 119 years at current rates of production

. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 46 and 63 years at current production levels."

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/

These are Global figures, not local, so by my figuring the planet has about 40-60 years left of real time Coal consumption and Gas & Oil have somewhat less.

Study Warns 'Peak Coal' Could Be Just Years Away

With electricity poised to potentially replace gasoline as the fuel that powers tomorrow's automobiles, the question of where that power comes from is an important one. If the majority of the world's electricity continues to come from coal, replacing internal combustion engines with lithium ion batteries will, in essence, just mean replacing one carbon-spewing combustible with another—though most research on the subject shows that EVs are still significantly cleaner.

But a new study calls into question whether coal will still be cheapest available source of energy by the time electric vehicles start making a major dent in the auto market. Could a looming shortage force our hand in replacing coal with nuclear energy and renewables?

Twin Peaks
In recent years, peak oil theory has received a lot of attention—and not just from the commodities gurus and conspiracy theorists who have been shouting warnings from the rooftops for decades. With global energy demand rising and countries like China and India on the cusp providing the world with billions of new consumers seeking something similar to the energy-thirsty "American way of life," even the mainstream media has been known to throw the term out there from time to time. In fact, it's possible that the consensus on peak oil has shifted in the last decade from a question of "if," to one of "when."

What hasn't gotten as much attention in recent years though is the global supply of another fossil fuel that mankind relies upon to power its prosperity: Coal. About half of the electricity used in the United States comes from the burning of coal, and in other countries that number is often much higher. China relies on the fuel for more than 70 percent of its energy. But with international demand for coal expected to rise by nearly 50 percent by 2030, exactly how much of this finite resource is left to mine, and how long will it be until global production peaks?

According to a study by Tadeusz Patzek of the University of Texas and Gregory Croft of Berkeley, that day is a lot closer than anyone would imagine. Patzek and Croft are warning that after 2011, global production rates for coal will begin to decline—sinking to 1990 levels by 2037 and dropping to half of peak production by 2037. The paper also projects a corresponding decrease in emissions from coal, by an average of 2 percent per year.

Peak coal isn't a new concept by any stretch, in fact it dates back to M. King Hubbert, the founder of peak oil theory. Using the same model he correctly used to forecast the decline of American oil production back in 1956, Hubbert predicted that global coal production would reach its apex in 2150. Since then, other researchers have placed the event closer and closer to the present day, with a 2007 study by the Energy Watch Group claiming that China will only be able to sustain its production trajectory until 2015.

Natural Cap and Trade?
So does this mean that the push to limit our emissions from coal is less dire than we might have thought? Patzek and Croft seem to think so, saying that the "current focus on carbon capture and geological sequestration may be misplaced. Instead, the global community should be devoting its attention to conservation and increasing efficiency of electrical power generation from coal."

Still, most global warming experts warn that decreasing the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere is an essential task that must be undertaken immediately if governments want to mitigate the effects of climate change. Waiting for global coal production to decline on its own might be the path of least resistance—and more satisfying to believers in the divine wisdom of the free market. But why focus on increasing the efficiency of coal when renewable energies are the only long-term solution to a looming problem that threatens to significantly alter the environment, destabilize world economies, or both?Link -
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/study-warns-peak-coal-could-be-just-years-away-28...
==============

Peak Coal 2011???

Peak oil is the villain governments need

Using the threat of a high oil prices is a sell the public will buy into – unlike intangible arguments over climate change.

Could peak oil lever politicians out from between the rock of the electorate and the hard place that is climate change mitigation? As Daniel Gros wrote in the Guardian: "the climate-change bill, for which President Barack Obama had pushed so hard, will not even be presented to the US Senate, because it stands no chance of passage". His analysis ends with a fatalistic statement: "Determined action at the global level will become possible only when climate change is no longer some scientific prediction, but a reality that people feel … A world incapable of preventing climate change will have to live with it."


Isn't that the trouble? Climate change is a stealthy foe, hard to feel, see or identify. Unlike peak oil. So here's another question: did western administrations know that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had been consistently concealing the imminence of peak oil? One might hope our leaders would know about something as serious as this. But if they did, why is it that renewable energy replacements haven't been far higher on the agenda, for much longer and addressed with rather more conviction? This is the question George Monbiot put in a freedom of information request sent to the Department for Business in February 2008, asking for details of the government's peak oil contingency planning.


"The answer I received astonished me," he wrote in the Guardian. Hardly surprising, considering the answer: "The government does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude oil supplies peaking between now and 2020." Eighteen months later, the Guardian published the IEA whistleblower story and the 2020 cover was blown. Were the government really taken in by the duplicity of the IEA? Or were they in on the act, making it difficult to appear sanguine about an imminent and permanent disruption to energy supplies?


Outside of the fossil fuel industry, it is hard to know to what extent commerce is aware of the impending crisis or the speed at which it would envelop us. Either way, industries appear to have woken up with a start, at least if the white paper, Sustainable energy security: strategic risks and opportunities for business, is a guide. Produced by Lloyd's of London and Chatham House, their assessment is sobering. They identify opportunities for the quick witted, as well as risks to the somnambulant. One statement by professor Paul Stevens in particular caught my eye: "A supply crunch appears likely around 2013 … given recent price experience, a spike in excess of $200 per barrel is not infeasible".


What effect would a barrel price of $200 have on industrial economies, should that spike be sustained for any length of time? We would witness endemic global market disruption, reductions in agricultural yield, increased transport costs for both finished goods and raw materials (true pessimists would add an oil war or two for good measure). The shockwaves would be felt everywhere, although as ever, the poor will take the brunt of it.


And yet when the price of oil shoots up, we use less – meaning we output less CO2. So let me rephrase my question: what effect would a barrel price of $200 have on the CO2 output of nations? It would certainly force a substantial reduction. It would be violent change, but that is the price of hubris. The longer we wait, the greater the cost when we finally act, when everything is rushed because the public furore can no longer be ignored. Remember the fuel protests? The UK ground to a halt in a matter of days at the behest of a few thousand protestors. Scale that up by an order of magnitude and you can see what a $200-an-oil-barrel world might look like, at least until we got used to it.


Since it will happen far sooner than any of the more serious impacts of climate change, we should abandon attempts to stop fossil fuel use because of climate change and concentrate on reducing fuel use, controlling energy prices and keeping national economies reasonably stable. That's a sell the public will buy into: the price of petrol or heating oil, the security of their jobs, the scarcity of resources – these are things the public can feel and see, and that contrarians cannot obfuscate out of ideological opposition.


Peak oil is inevitable. Something has to give, and it's consumerism. Governments know this perfectly well. What they really need is some externality, something abstract they can blame – deflecting the public wrath from the ballot box. Western governments need a villain. Oil at $200 a barrel fits the bill perfectly.
Link -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/11/peak-oil-villain-g...
=========
Some Politicians, Economists & government officials are aware & have been for some time, whilst the majority have no idea!

That's corn ethanol - and yes, we know that already. Ethanol derived from sugar cane is an entirely different prospect.

As far as I know, there is no debate on corn ethanol. It's a bad idea.

(so is ethanol derived from natural gas, but that's even worse)

If you want a viable alternative to corn ethanol, look at cellulosic ethanol.

Here in Australia, we primarily use sugar cane anyway, but if we can use the entire cane crop including the cellulosic  portion, we'd be on a winner.

Book Review - Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects

The discussion about our energy supply is full of extremely optimistic expectations. There are many people who believe that full replacement of fossil with renewable energy sources in an extremely short time span is possible. Such ideas have been publicly voiced in Al Gore’s call for 100% renewable energy in the United States within 10 years, and Jacobson & Delucchi’s plan to power 100 percent of the planet with renewable by 2030 published in Scientific American.
Their optimism stems from ignoring the inherent gradual nature of energy transitions and the quality differences between energy sources.

Both issues are described in Vaclav Smil’s new book, Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects. Vaclav Smil, a Professor at the University of Manitoba, has been writing about energy for more than two decades. This book is written in his usual clear descriptive style. He has an eye for detail as he quantifies many historical amounts, providing a much needed reality check for any energy transition scenario under consideration. He concludes that energy transitions are a generations-long process. To increase the likelihood of success of the coming energy transition, it would be wise for affluent nations to introduce policy targets to reduce absolute energy usage per capita.

“The scale of the coming energy transition is best illustrated by comparing the future demand for non-fossil fuels and primary electricity with the past demand for fossil energies that were needed to complete the epochal shift from biomass to coal and hydrocarbons.

By the late 1890s, when the share of biomass energies slipped just below 50% of the world’s total primary energy supply, less than 20 ExaJoules (EJ) of additional fossil fuel supply were needed to substitute all of the remaining biomass energy consumption.

By 2010 the global use of fossil energies runs at the annual rate of roughly 400 EJ, which means that the need for new non-fossil energy supply to displace coal and hydrocarbons is 20 times greater in overall energy terms than was the need for fossil energies during the 1890s.”

"Globally, coal began to supply more than 5% of all fuel energies around 1840, more than 10% in the early 1850s, more than a quarter of the total by the late 1870s, and one half by the beginning of the twentieth century…”

Vaclav Smil concludes his book with advice that a shift away from fossil fuels is a generations-long process.

“The inertia of existing massive and expensive energy infrastructures and prime movers and the time and capital investment needed for putting in place new convertors and new networks make it inevitable that the primary energy supply of most modern nations will contain a significant component of fossil fuels for decades to come.”

Therefore, from Smil’s perspective, hoping for rapid technological development and increasingly better conversion efficiencies is insufficient. He believes that a precondition for a successful transition from fossil fuels is that all affluent nations take steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption, through conservation and increased energy efficiently. In this way, the amount of replacement fuel can be reduced.

“Difficult as it would be, reducing the energy use would be much more rewarding than deploying dubious energy conversions operating with marginal energy returns (fermentation of liquids from energy crops being an excellent example), sequestering the emissions of CO2 (now seen as the best future choice by some industries), and making exaggerated claims for non-fossil electricity production (both in terms of their near-term contributions and eventual market shares). Or hoping for an early success of highly unconventional renewable conversions (jet stream winds, ocean thermal differences, deep geothermal). After all, a dedicated but entirely realistic pursuit of this goal could result in reductions on the order of 10% of the total primary energy consumption in a single generation, an achievement whose multiple benefits could not be matched by the opposite effort to increase the overall energy use.

Affluent countries should thus replace their traditional pursuit of higher energy output and increased conversion efficiency with a new approach that would combine aggressively improved efficiency of energy conversion with decreasing rates of per capita energy use. This combination would be the best enabler of the unfolding energy transition. Until we get such history-changing conversions as reliable, inexpensive PV cells generating electricity with 50% efficiency or genetically engineered bacteria exuding billions of liters of kerosene, it is the best way to ensure that new renewables will come as close to displacing fossil fuels as is economically advantageous and environmentally acceptable”
Link -
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6828
===========
The transition will take place, for various reasons, but will it be voluntary and will it be planned?

PEAK OIL? I cant believe its oil!

Product DescriptionI can’t believe it’s oil!
uses include: deodorants, petroleum jelly, moisturizers, rubbing alcohol, soaps, heart valves, antiseptics, hearing aids, nasal decongestants, antihistamines, moisturizers, Bactine, vaporizers, latex gloves, bandages, allergy medications, aspirin, burn lotions, insect repellents, anesthetics, artificial limbs, cough syrup, cologne, dentures, stethoscopes, syringes, glycerin, cortisone, cosmetics, dentures, vitamins
Link -
http://heinzduthel.com/2010/08/14/peak-oil-i-cant-believe-its-oil/
=============
And, that's only a very small amount of Products that incorporate the use of Oil.