Fossil fuel use keeps on rising 13 May 05

Camry! I can’t wait. I think hybrid cars are smart use of fuel and the next logical step toward petroleum free transportation. The technology for fuel cells is not there yet but hopefully will be one day soon!

Hybrid technology is more expensive now but as it becomes more mass produced will go down in price. The popularity in the US is growing exponentially. The Prius sales increased by 80% this last year. I like the fact they are introducing it on more normal sized cars. The Insight was too cramped for carrying around kids and stuff….

Better times ahead for dinosaur sludge. Unfortunately, China is the new worry. With the size of their (and India’s) population the potential for A LOT of petrol to be used is definitely there!

The main problem is the USA’s car culture. Jim is correct about hybrids helping to increase fuel efficiency but after reading the chapter on Natural Capitalism concerning vehicles, the main 2 problems in the USA are that we are driving heavier vehicles and our urban development makes car-travel more a necessity.

The problem with vehicle weight has more to do with safety concerns. Parents have opted for heavier vehicles to protect their children.

Vehicle weight makes all vehicles more inefficient because we end up moving more than a ton of metal rather than occupants inside. Most of the energy goes to moving the “car” and not the “people”. For example, motorcycles have an inefficient ICE but have a much higher fuel economy than hybrids.

I posted a more detailed analysis of this aspect in a post I made in the conversation between Lynn and Colin on electric vehicles. I talk about mass inequity on our highways and its safety implications. See my previous post below for more detail if you have not read it:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1370.html

Our urban development is making it difficult for people to afford to live where their jobs are. Companies relocate. This forces people to drive further and increases more road use and congestion. The hybrids will help because they are more fuel efficient in congested traffic. But, better urban planning would help. Our laws and culture do not encourage the best planning.

There are many other factors including no safe areas to walk or cycle in much of our urban development. I think that all urban development, within reason, should develop “continuous” sidewalks and bicycle trails along each road so people can at least have other options other than drive. Again, it comes back to the safety theme.

Now with respect to China and India, these 2 countries are prospering largely because of the economic-machine called the USA and again this places some of the responsibility back on us.

The only problem I have with China at all is that their population is still growing rapidly even with all their energy and environmental problems. I am not sure about India. The USA is growing not so much from more births but from more immigration from other countries which reduces people in other countries. Even so, our new immigrants enter a more energy intensive culture. Population growth is a problem in the world. I think it is another factor which Kyoto did not address enough in its formulations but which makes it difficult for any country to reduce energy and emissions when more people are added. Those that are reducing in population can more easily meet Kyoto without doing as much on improving energy infrastructure.

Fossil fuel use would not be rising if that energy were utilized better. From my perspective, we will still need fossil fuels in the transition to a more sustainable way. America is stuck with its car culture for the foreseeable future since it would require even more energy and money to dramatically change its car infrastructure than to dramatically increase its fuel efficiency.

It’s a matter of capital investment. Call it “infrastructure inertia” since I like to use physics terminology. Our infrastructure was built up over time and it cannot change quickly. It would require more energy to convert our infrastructure and our country is large with large open spaces with particular regions devoted to specific economies. Energy efficiency improvements in transportation and urban development are so important for us. So much inertia and Peak Oil will make the problems more difficult. The good news is that we have so much waste which individuals can cut back on.

The future will be interesting indeed. We are headed for crises! The whole world is! The oil depletion and financial crises will precede the climate crises and become the prime mover in my opinion. When that occurs, how we proceed to include climate aspects in energy development will be important. We need to think ahead right now because the panic and fear may make for desperate decision making later.

We simply waste too much of the energy from fossil fuels. We can use less fuel and use it better. In any plan, this is absolutely the best focus we should have. When we use fossil fuel energy better, then we also help the renewable market develop because that energy has a lower energy density and wasteful practices make renewable energy less viable.

I am telling all of you on this blog that your awareness is higher than the mainstream of your own culture. You are ahead of the curve and that makes your leadership more valuable for others who know less. You cannot escape this and remain responsible.

Please note that as we develop more, we start thinking more and more in visionary ways. You can quote me on this one:

“Visionaries do not predict the future. They create it”

The Bible says that “without vision, the people perish”. I think the only proper vision to have is that the people of the 22nd century will know a better world than we know today.

We may go through “hell” in the transition but it is up to the people of the early part of the 21st century to make what we do “good reading” in the history books of the next century.

With all that said, look in the mirror and see someone who is very important. In that image, you can have confidence and optimism for the future. Believe in yourself and know you are not alone! With great challenges come great opportunities for good!

Best Regards to everyone on this blog,

Dan

If I had a plug-in hybrid (one that could be run entirely on electricity), even if it had only a range of 10 miles per charge (which is more than we drive over 90% of our driving days), we could run our car almost entirely on wind-generated power (maybe only driving a few hundred miles on petroleum).

And our wind-powered electricity from Green Mountain Energy is now about $1 less per month than conventional electricity – just as of this past month (it was about $1 more per month this past year).

For those interested in TEXAS, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSY, OHIO, NEW YORK, and a few other states, the website is: www.grenmountain.com

I’ve also found out there is wind energy available now in most of COLORADO through some other company – I’ll get back with the website later. In that case the customer has to pay $2.75 extra per 100 KWH, and can buy up to 300 KWH of wind energy per month, so $8.25 per month for doing Mother Nature & all us people on earth a great deed. Think of it as charity, rather than “how can we find the cheapest energy source.”

People can find out for their own states by googling their state name & wind energy

So, really, how high do scientists think the CO2 level can go with an unrestrained use of fossil fuels as is taking place? I mean is there a level that will be high enough for sceptics to agree is a problem? What is the state of other green house gases? Are they following CO2 up at the same rate? Since we have a professional sceptics bought and paid for by industry and rightwing politicians is there any kevel of CO2 that even they would agree is a problem. Or is it still “Don’t worry be happy” “Think how the 3rd world will suffer if we do anything about global greenhouse gases”? Since when did industry and rightwing politicians give a hoot about the 3rd world? Only when they can fit it into there jobs as professional doubt sowers.

I would never undermine the importance of monitoring CO2 levels or its significance but as you mentioned there are other greenhouse gases. Methane and nitrous oxide are the next main ones. Carbon deserves a lot of attention but not ALL of it.

Should we fly a plane or not is another interest since the contrails may have a cooling effect greater than the carbon releases they emit. It seems like a trap.

Same is true for coal power-plant sulfates. I call it the coal trap. I agree that these sulfates should be cleaned up but if they are cooling the planet, then should we hurry this process when we have a large carbon buildup which would accelerate warming once the sulfates are cleared up?

Albedo aspects and how they affect the earth’s energy balance are of particular interest to me. It seems that increasing albedo of land surfaces plus reducing methane emissions may be more feasible than just reducing the carbon buildup or even making the carbon emissions to be in equilibrium with the carbon already in the atmosphere.

I am asking these “hard” questions because they have to be asked.

Concerning carbon level, we should be better stewards of fossil fuels because they serve a purpose in petrol-chemicals and feedstock for plastic materials. A philosophy of getting the most use out of our fossil-fuel resources by promoting the highest energy efficiency, not wasting this energy through poorly designed land-use policies, and promoting more non-fossil fuel energy is the best bet to reduce carbon.

A reliance on natural gas more than oil and coal would help reduce carbon emissions and other emissions. Cleaning up coal sulfate emissions will not reduce its carbon output unless sequestered. Methane produces less carbon and no sulfates for the same heat output so I favor its use. If carbon from coal was sequestered, then I would be more supportive of sulfate removal. Should we remove the sulfates and reintroduce them elsewhere where they would cause less harm? Maybe a bad idea! Maybe not! I do not know enough to be sure except I do know that the complexities of these issues will not go away by adhering to any plans which do not address them.

I guess that is why I like the heat balance focus over the carbon focus. The heat balance focus includes carbon, all other greenhouse gases, sulfates, and land albedo. If the sun’s variations were included, then we could factor out the sun’s influence from both natural and human-induced climate effects. I wonder how the variations of the sun compare with the heat imbalance number.

The heat-imbalance number can determine our progress and if it increases rapidly over time, then it shows a runaway affect is in place. If it ever starts decreasing, then we know we are making real progress.

Carbon levels cannot do this. If we stabilize carbon, and that is a big IF, then we may think we are OK but if land albedo decreases to the point whereby the earth’s heat imbalance has increased anyway, it means GW is continuing anyway despite our apparent success.

Final question:

Is the earth’s heat imbalance minus sun’s variability going up faster than the carbon levels, not as fast, or staying the same.

The rate of change of the imbalance number as compared to the carbon-level number would be helpful to those who desire a more quantitative understanding of these issues. That would be me!

All the best,

Dan

will offer all the answers. But of course there is a huge mix of factors that go into global climate. We know from climate history that stable climates are common for long time spans and also given certain inputs , climate can be wildly variable. The natural world has often sent the climate in different directions ,that is what climate history is. The sun output and earths position relative to the sun due to orbit variables ,well the list goes on. And this makes good food for skeptics. Bottom line on this and undeniable is : we have changed the equation by our industrial and agricultural actions. We started an experiment on our planet. Evidence now coming in , like Mark’s book , is showing signs that we are having an impact. I think we are slippery ice with all that we do from here on in. It is all nothing less than an experiment on the climate by people [US] who are unsure of how what we do or don’t do from this day forward will affect global climate. Recent evidence of Ocean current changes is the real kicker! They hold the key to rapid climate change in certain areas. They might come to bite us in the backside at anytime.

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, the orbital forcing are called Milankovitch Cycles after the Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovitch. A quick explanation of these cycles can be found at the link below:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

These forcings are on very long time scales and cannot be responsible for decadal or even century-scale climate anomalies.

I checked into solar variability and looked at some numbers. The 11-year sunspot cycle does create solar variations withing this time frame but when these are averaged out, the solar variability is much less than the heat imbalance number of 0.85 W/m2 posted by Mark. I suppose the uncertainty value of plus or minus 0.15 W/m2 may have had something to do with solar variability as the numbers I looked at seemed to indicate this.

Solar Variations are mentioned in this site below:

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/reid00.html

The contrarian argument cannot rely on either orbital forcing and/or solar variability to counter observed warming as being from natural causes alone in my opinion.

Best Regards,

Dan