Oil's dirty future 25 May 05

I do not think we ever did this topic but when I read the book: “The End of Oil”, Paul Roberts mentioned that there are vast quantities of natural gas that were never developed because of transport problems when a pipeline could not be used to deliver it from the wellhead.

According to Roberts, methane fuel would be more developed in response to oil depletion and LNG ships would be the preferred choice of bringing this fuel to port.

Now, I have mixed emotions after a little research showed me how this industry develops bears heavily on safety and security concerns.

The truth for me is that LNG will be inevitable as the initial response to peak oil. I think the risks can be diminished and they need to be.

If the safety and security concerns can be adequately addressed, then I do think this industry has more merit than developing tar sands as I agree this appears to be a nasty solution.

In the short term, we will have to have fossil fuel to bridge to something better and since so much oil is used in transportation, methane seems to be the lesser of other evils.

I do not want to take away from your posted topic on tar sands. I would like you to post some aspects both pro and con about LNG. We do need another fossil-fuel option in the short term other than oil so I hope that point is not lost in our discussions.

We cannot be “against” everything associated with fossil fuels but have to find a critical path towards solution. So, I hope the discussion develops as to specifying what our bests options really are as oil depletes to best utilize our fossil fuel resources which will reduce emissions and bridge the gap as we develop more renewable energy.

At this point, it would be amazing if we could just start reducing world demand for any fossil fuel.

Best Regards,

Dan

First let me say that although it’s bad news the US media are covering a GW/CC issue from an informed perspective.

In line with my efforts to look for solutions, as Dan is doing, does anyone out there know if the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) model for dealing with sulfur (sp – yes I know but that’s how they spell it!) dioxide emissions is in any way applicable to the messy operation in Alberta. Seems SO2 emissions were a big problem and the EPA introduced a policy which incorporated “permits” and a “price signal” system. It seems to have worked. I imagine there must be a fair number of Canadian activists on the case. Is anyone in contact with them?

There is an article on the Open Democracy site on the issue titled “A new strategy for climate change”. And also there, in the politics of Global Warming discussions, is a thread I’ve started on carbon rationing.

Douglas Coker

This has got to be good news. The Friends of the Earth have today announced their “Big Ask” campaign. It’s aim is to pressure the government to introduce legislation – a LAW – which makes it mandatory for CO2 emissions to be reduced by 3% per year over the next 40 years. Is this the precursor to carbon rationing?

They refer to some of the authors mentioned on this site as their “inspiration” – well recommended reading! These include Hawken/Lovins, Hillman and a certain Lynas.

More at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/the_big_ask.pdf

Douglas Coker

is if other sources of energy are cheaper – and I think they might be or soon be. Our electric bill last month (100% wind power) was about $1 less than if we had conventional electricity (gas powered). This past year it has been about $1 more, and before that about $5 or so more.

Now what we really need are hybrid cars that are mainly battery powered, with a small back up gasoline or gas tanks. I know the technology is there for completely electric cars to get a 300 mile range with a 15 minute recharge (the batteries are more expensive, though). And who wouldn’t want a 15 minute rest after driving 5-6 hours? Or a meal?

Now, as for airplanes, can we have hydrogen fueled planes? Could these be cost-competitive, or could we give them big subsidies to make them so? Say, the same amount of subsidies oil gets (with or without counting military costs to protect & procure our oil supply)? Of course, the water vapor a hydrogen-powered plane would emit would also be a problem, but not nearly as much as GHGs from petroleum.

Now for all that oil tar. Could it be used to build or maintain roads or something, rather than spewing it into the atmosphere? Then add a top layer of that white stuff Dan was talking about for albedo effect. Wouldn’t want the oil-tar investors to go scot broke.

Yes Lynn let’s talk about these and other solutions. The Lovins approach has inspired you. I’ve finished “Natural Capitalism” now and am letting it settle down in my head before writing a review. Maybe Mark could organise some sort of way our efforts on this could be pooled and co-ordinated.

In the meantime, for those who want a shortcut, there is a useful review of Lovins work in Chapter 9 “Less is more”, of Paul Robert’s book “The end of oil”

More specifically on the air travel issue. While there needs to be less the genie is out of the bottle and there will always be a demand for international air travel. I’ve wondered if the idea of the airship could not be resurrected. I guess there are technological problems to be solved but airship travel fits with the “slow” movement. There is a slow food movement in Italy and I think there is a slow town here in the UK. From choice not congestion!

Douglas Coker

Douglas, there has been a series on channel four in the UK on this subject. They are building them (air-ships) again, I believe in germany part of the original zeplin’s mainly as a tourist attraction.

I believe they are also talking about a cross european company that is trying to rais some cash to make it a comercial enterprise. ie being a destination carrier.

I have also read, or seen. (cant remember) that the Japanese have done some test flight of lighter then air ships that are reaching the very outer reaches of our atmosphear. Near space exploration.

Apparantly the Americans are looking in to this technology as part of thier military stratergies.

So airships are coming back on to the agenda.

Sorry I dont have any links to this stuff. I guess doing a search on the channel 4 site might give you more information.

Cheers Ian.

Thanks Ian will check out C4 site as you suggest.

Douglas Coker

Clearly, the oil sands project is in CANADA! Yet, once again, it’s America who gets the blame by some for Canadian choices? Why is this America’s fault? Because we are willing to buy what other countries are selling?

I looked at a couple of websites which showed pride in the oils sand projects and offering tours of the works. http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/enjoying_alberta/museums_historic_sites/site_listings/oil_sands/index.asp

Looking around at the “partners” for these oil sand projects a few included UTS, Petro Canada and Encana which are all Canadian companies.

China is also warming to Canada’s oil “The dragon’s thirst for Canadian oil” http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=11350

Project funding is being sought from all sides “Oil Sands Investment Opportunities Featured as Topic of Seminar” http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/May2005/26/c4075.html

For those who do it, please stop laying all of the world’s woes at the feet of the US!

As far as the CO2 issue, I was reading the oil recovery technology pumps huge amounts of CO2 deep down which at depth liquifies and then helps bring up the oil. I’m not sure if this is polluting the air or not because it’s so deep in the earth.

Jimbo – here are a number of points to consider.

The Alberta tar sands are a resource which will be exploited not least on the gounds of “energy security”. Geographically they are close to the end users many of whom are just over the border. Politically Canada is stable and “reasonably friendly” (ref Michael Moore) unlike the Middle-East and other parts of the world such as Nigeria and various countries ending in stan. That’s why a very “dirty” resource is being exploited. Desparation!

Yes, when pointing fingers and attributing blame China and India (and others) are a worry. They are producing and will produce CO2 in large quantities. The reason the US gets so much attention is because it consumes so much oil, it chucks out a lot of CO2 and it’s leaders don’t seem to give a damn.

The tragedy is the US, because of it’s world dominant position, could give a strong lead on CO2 reductions. But, for instance, your EPA’s warnings have not been heeded. And I know there are some good people working away on the issue. I had a look at the Sierra Club site yesterday.

Just one quote from a book I’ve been reading; “There is no question that the day the United States got serious about a new energy system, we could have a huge impact in ten years …. we never will” A former top-level Energy Department official said that.

I hope he’s wrong. The quote is from page 306 “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts I highly recommend you and others read it. It’s a very well researched book, well written and described by one reviewer as a “tour de force”. And by the way he’s a fellow countryman of yours.

Douglas Coker

using hydrogen fuel cells r/t petrol. I don’t even know if its feasible. I think they are used for space ships. According to Rocky Mt. Institute (rmi.org), hydrogen fuel cells are safer than petrol & if hydrogen ignites by mistake, it rises rapidly & burns upward, so the fuel cells could be placed near the top of the jets.

Is this even technologically or economically feasible? The exhaust would be water vapor.

Americans would probably not go for blimps. We are far too impatient.

Jimbo,

I know that there are a lot of brillient folk in America, I allways enjoy my stays there. But let me try to make a difference between your government and her loyal servants.

We in England are fighting a new ID card system. Here is what your govrenment would like to do to us.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=641731

It is for reasons like this that ordinary folk start pointing fingers at America.

Cheers Ian

for sure! I know the USA has been of no help in the first efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Just as all take aim on the USA to do something, we see economic growth spring to life in the two largest nations in the world China/India. Well, simple enough they want a western economic lifestyle. Who can blame them? The result of even a fraction of 2.5 billion people reaching US consumption levels is a disaster in no uncertain terms. If we get the US to take some action, which I doubt give the present administration, we still face a complete disaster coming down the road. The US is now looking to coal, China ia looking to buy anything that burns and soon India will be the same. New cars by the ten’s of millions hitting the road. Well, I fail to see a bright spot. How do we deal with this? It is really Easter Island all over again, they cut their last tree knowing they had doomed themselves, we will burn the last drop of oil and lump of coal even though we know what it will do to us. Are we already too far along to help ourselves?

America has been highly praised and admired over the past century and before for its wonderful achievements & innovations for a better life.

And many good Americans (like me) are doing what we can to address GW.

Here is something I feel bad about. America & Americans are so good in solving problems & making bucks in the process, that it is a shame our government is not encouraging this more by facing up to the problems of GW and calling on American ingenuity to solve this. Of course, other peoples around the world can come up with solutions, but you & I know that no one can beat Americans once we put our mind to something! That is what I feel bad about. The world sorely needs our creativity & entrepreneurship & vigor & leadership on this very serious problem.

I would say to anyone who exclusively points the finger of blame at Americans to see that three other fingers are pointing back at themselves. We should finger-point, but we should also see what we ourselves can do.