Like a pair of thugs closing in on us from opposite directions in a narrow alley, the combination of peak oil and global climate change may have our civilization pinned, with nowhere to go. No fire escape to climb down, no doorway to run into, no drain hole to climb down. Each of them steps closer every day, ready to wreak havoc and in fact already doing so.
All that remains is some kind of jujitsu, some way to play one enemy against the other. It is possible that, with some adroit maneuvering, peak oil and global climate change could nullify a large part of each other’s destructive force. All the while, we must also remember that these are not really “enemies” per se. They are simply realities. People who live in a reality-based world need to make the actual facts into their friends.
Starting point facts: both global climate change and peak oil are upon us. Now. Not in 2100, not in 2020 or 2030.
With respect to climate change, excellent analyses are posted on almost a daily basis at http:/www.climateprogress.org, required reading to stay current on this topic. Excellent posts on DKos include this recent example http://www.dailykos.com/... by FishOutofWater, who is clearly an expert in energy and environmental science.
WRT Peak Oil, the recent Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/... made the news and was widely cited here and everywhere, this DKos post http://www.dailykos.com/...(wiki)Leaking-Into-The-Public-Discussion by A Siegel, expertly connects the dots from the news item to the bigger picture, in case anyone did not get the memo. There will be, or already is, peak oil, it is just a matter of how soon (or how long ago), and how steep is the decline curve on the far side.
Some big numbers:
Current rate of oil extraction primarily for combustion: 80 million barrels per day
Carbon emissions: 9 billion metric tons per year
And you may ask yourself, how do I work this?
It’s easier to demonstrate how peak oil mitigates climate change, so let’s look at that. Simply put, the amount of carbon released by combustion of liquid petroleum products (the largest single source at 36%, although not a majority, of all CO2 emissions worldwide, per Wikipedia, and slightly more than coal) is going to remain more or less proportional to the amount of oil extracted and combusted. In this larger sense, it doesn’t matter how efficient your gasoline car is (that is, it doesn’t matter how much “value” you got), if we pump out, refine, and burn X barrels of oil per year, we will emit Y tons of CO2. That’s because most CO2 reductions relating to oil are all about burning less of it – when the carbon-containing molecule gets burned, it turns into one CO2 per C in the original molecule. Theoretical sequestration or recapture technology will only be adopted in large central sources, if ever.
So, if less oil is combusted, there will be less oil-related CO2 emissions. Less oil extracted, less CO2 emissions [I am omitting a possible effect relating changes in the percent of extracted oil that is converted into durable goods rather than combusted.]. There are similar effects for other fossil fuels but it is easiest to illustrate in the case of oil.
So if, in the course of some number of years, the quantity of oil extracted and combusted goes down from say 80 million barrels a year to 60 million barrels a year, GHG emissions relating directly to oil will go down by about 25%, provided that the energy demand is met instead by non-combustion sources. At 40 million barrels a day, it’s a 50% reduction. The standard “alarmist” peak oil projection is actually good news from a climate perspective.
Will the amount of oil extracted and available to combust really go down? There is plenty of debate about how much and how fast, but here is a meta-answer: It all depends on price. If the price of oil skyrockets, then oil companies will find a way, somehow, somewhere, some war, to pump out and sell that 80 million barrels a year, for longer than would be good from a climate point of view, perhaps several more decades.
And here is the golden opportunity. What if, through replacement non-combustion energy sources, it is possible to create a ceiling on oil prices? A ceiling where, if the price looks to exceed that number for any length of time, additional sources of clean energy will kick in. That ceiling will be more than the current price of oil, it might be $100, $150, or $200 a barrel. As long as that ceiling exists, there will come a time, sooner rather than later, when it is no longer worth it for an oil company to pursue the latest scheme to drill miles deep, or overturn the government of an Asian country, to get at a few more barrels.
Existing oil fields will continue to be cash cows, with their big up front expenses paid, pumping out their oil in quantities that will decline at 3 to 6% a year. That’s fine. Let them make their money from the existing herd, as long as the conditions arise that stop most further exploration.
In addition to oil prices going up, the price of renewable energy is going down, even setting aside subsidies. This is because, once a new technology enters into mass production, smart people find ways to make it better and cheaper. Here is recent illustrative info:
Capital cost of solar panels, end of 2007: $3.7 per KW
Capital cost of solar panels, end of 2010: $1.8 per KW
Percentage of 2010 cost to 2007 cost: 48.65%
http://www.reuters.com/...
That’s amazing. A reduction of more than 50% in 3 years. Now this number is only the cost of the panels themselves, not installation and related structures, nor operating costs. It’s still an incredible achievement.
At some point, these curves cross. Oil, heading from $100 a barrel in the direction of $200. Solar, capital cost currently declining 50% in 3 years. [Yes, I know, you can’t power most existing cars with electricity. There are many needed pieces of the puzzle here, including making energy supplies far more fungible through the common intermediary of electricity.]
In some ways, the more important crossing is not when solar, or other non-combustion technology, becomes directly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. It’s when solar, or similar, costs less than the capital cost of discovering new oil (and later, other fossil fuels especially coal).
Then, fossil fuels will lose even in the stupidest possible market condition, being the one that ignores externalities such as GHG pollution. Oh wait, that’s the second stupidest market condition. The actual stupidest condition is the one that we have now, where we actively subsidize fossil fuels.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Nevertheless, that day will come.
Is this a stirring call to inaction? No way! There is one and only one way that non-combustion technologies will continue and even accelerate their aggressive trajectory of improvement and cost reduction per KW and per KWH. Practice. Not in a research lab, but in large scale manufacture and real world deployment. Anything we can do, so that these technologies move into mass markets, will accelerate the arrival of the crossover day. Subsidies? You bet! Taxes that reflect the true cost of fossil fuels? Even better! How about both? Whatever it takes.
I guess this diary is not going to get to the converse question – how climate change can mitigate peak oil. Too long already. It’s kind of the converse of the same idea.
A perilous road with lots of Ifs. If, there is not a massive positive feedback loop from melting permafrost or ice loss. If, certain countries do not drag the rest of the world into conflagration by asserting their “right” to oil wherever it may be found. If. Still, there is a very real path, and it might just work.
Setting aside all the theory for a moment, an appeal. If you are not recycling or reusing 50% or more of your household waste stream, well, start yesterday. Once you start really trying, 75% or more is not hard at all. Recycling is not just about keeping the landfill from overflowing. Even more importantly, it is about resource recovery including energy and petroleum products. If you are not doing your part, please start now.