Comment of the Day
A plea:
If those who worry about what would happen if we burned all the fossil fuels and those who worry that we will blow ourselves up deciding a “˜fair and equitable’ distribution of those resources could just sit down and agree that burning fossil fuels is a problem, then maybe, just maybe a solution might emerge.
But alas, we are locked into some foolish struggle over having to agree on why burning fossil fuels might be a problem.
Very similar argument to what RPJ and BTI write. But it doesn’t settle anything. It just kicks down the road the decision, and it is a crucially important decision, how fast to stop burning fossil fuels.
If we’re rapidly approaching a possible irreversible tipping point in the climate system, I might want to pursue a very aggressive and expensive path away from burning them.
If there is no discontinuity, then maybe it’s good to take a more leisurely approach, wherein we wait for other energy sources to become cheaper than oil and coal. In fact, the constituency that worries about us blowing ourselves up could plausibly argue that the economic disruption of quitting the fossil habit too fast will destabilize the Middle East and raise the risk of blowing ourselves up.
So the argument is less about whether to quit burning fossil fuels than about how quickly and expensively to quit. And I don’t see how we can agree on that if we don’t agree at least somewhat on why we’re quitting.
If we’re quitting because we’re running out, tar sands and coal-to-liquid make our problem less severe and we should proceed with those. If we’re quitting because we’re polluting on a global scale in a near-irreversible way, tar sands and coal-to-liquid make matters much worse and we should avoid those. On the other hand if you don’t much care about greenhouse gases, carbon sequestration is a fool’s errand, while if you do, it may be our ace in the hole.
So yes, it matters a great deal once you start looking at the tactical level. The world is not neatly set up to finesse this problem.
Good points, Michael.
Two of the initiatives that make sense either way (climate alarm or peak oil alarm) are aggressive programs in conservation/efficiency and in nuclear power.
Conservation and efficiency, both parties are on board. The spectrum of opinion all the way to the Horn ‘o Plenty WSJ editorial board offers at least lip service.
In my local paper this morning, I read an Op-Ed contributed by Ellen Vancko, the manager of the Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. [The] Calvert Cliffs 3 [Reactor] Makes No Sense.
UCS’ Climate Change Project is opposed to displacing coal with nuclear for baseload generation, but in favor of natural gas and of many renewable energy technologies, on economic grounds.
Michael Tobis’ points are logical. Still, maybe the Climate Change people would have something to learn from talking with the Peak Oil folks, at least in this area.
Well Keith since you’ve elevated BBD’s comment, let me repost mine 🙂 and expand a bit.
@BBD
I share your frustration at the lack of progress that peakers and climate concerned have had in presenting a compelling “˜big tent’ case for transitioning to alternative energy sources. But on this particular issue i’d suggest that the fault lies primarily with the Right (within an U.S. context) rather than the left. In the same way that climate change has become synonymous with Al Gore (i.e. catnip for the right), energy independence was set back generations by being tied to Carter. And so as with many other issues good climate/energy policies stall because they don’t make for good politics.
The problem with both peak oil (or peak fossil more generally) and climate change is that they are long-term problems. Period. Modern democracies are simply not well equipped to deal with long-term *anything*.
Just as we get the media we want (i.e. increasingly shallow infotainment), we also get a political system that panders to short-term, narcissistic, juvenile tendencies. Attack ads work. We mightwish that weren’t so, but there it is. Now the Marxist in me puts some of the blame for our current state of affairs at the feet of the Koch brothers, and corporate interests more generally, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
@Amac
Having recently met with Senator Pavley, I can asure you that these sorts of measures do not have bipartisan support (at least in the U.S.). One need only look to the historic refusal of GWB to grant California the waiver it needed to pass vehicle GHG standards to see that this is so. Unfortunately, the right in the u.s. (and Canada) has chosen to oppose efficiency standards using on the grounds that it ‘interferes’ with the market, and that it raises the costs of the product in question. 20% ROI be damned.
If you live in a jurisdiction that has abundant coal reserves the concern about ‘peak’ really is limited to oil and the transportation sector (which EU and other oil importing countries deal with via taxation policy), in which case your point about nuclear is moot. As an Ontarian, I’ve got mixed feelings nuclear. The history of cost overruns doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, but then perhaps that’s a function of CANDU reactor design :). But, as I’ve said earlier, that’s the cheapest source of carbon-free baseload, then I’ll gladly trade the risk of meltdown and the problems with disposal for the risks of climate disruption.
Well, that’s one signed up for sanity. I don’t care about anybody’s motivation. If they are for clean energy, that’s the good news. Even if they’re for the slightly less dirty energy, like gas, that’s the good news.
Insisting on ideological purity has not been successful to date. Let’s all bear in mind that Senator Inhofe joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to improve energy efficiency in Congressional buildings last year.
It can be done.
what about the chinese? 50% of coal use and growing and India as well.
Marlowe #5
It was harrywr2’s comment, not mine. Although I do agree with much of what he says.
Barry Woods
Shhh… no one wants to talk about that stuff.
I still don’t understand the thinking here.
For example, Jonathan Gilligan #1, Michael Tobis #2 and Marlowe Johnson #5 all talk about moving away from fossil fuels as though there were a viable mechanism for doing so.
Marlowe and I have had a lengthy exchange about just how much fossil fuels can be displaced by renewables and (I think) agreed that ~30% might be a realistic upper bound by mid-century. No more, and no faster. (Marlowe, if you disagree, I am not trying to put words into your mouth. This is my error and acknowledgement and apologies are automatic).
The fundamental inefficiency of renewables and the sheer size of the engineering challenge are the main limiting factors.
I do not ignore cost, but am mindful that for many here, it is a secondary issue. If we must, we must, and the money will have to be found.
Nuclear might improve matters, but it is debatable by how much and how fast.
So what about the other ~70% of the energy mix still met by fossil fuels?
And what about China and India and the indisputable fact that the world energy mix is still almost 50% coal?
Finally, those knowledgeable about such matters inform me that CCS is more aspiration than substance and may remain so for the foreseeable future. I understand the core problems to be EROEI and (if the technical and energy balance questions can be solved) what to do with the vast and continuous stream of CO2.
I am not trying to be provocative but I do feel as though the debate has simply skipped over the hard questions. This is disturbing.
@BBD
If you’re restricting your definition of renewables to wind and solar PV, then we’re in agreement. However, using a more expansive definition (e.g. geothermal, biomass CHP, hydro, and solar csp) I think its reasonable to suggest that globally you could see penetration rates much higher than 30%…
On the transportation side, I’m willing to bet that fleets in the most of the world will mostly EVs and PHEVs with significant vehicle to grid to boot (which will help deal with peaking/renewables issues in the power sector).
Out of curiousity have you read this, and if so what are your thoughts?
Marlowe #1
Thank you for the link. I haven’t read this report, but a brisk scan does seem to suggest that it is laudably positive and hopelessly optimistic. Let me have a proper look over the weekend.
I have a sinking feeling that even with significant global-scale investment and genuine determination it will be difficult to get enough out of non-wind/solar renewables to push down fossil fuels far or fast enough. I’m sure you know the scale of energy demand today; you must see the unlikelihood of avoiding an energy gap.
And there is still the huge problem of China and eventually India burning cheap coal to power their industrialisation.
A global fleet of EVs and PHEVs needs a very substantial secure baseload capacity. We mustn’t forget that. And I have to be honest and say that the conceptual vehicle to grid backup against wind intermittency has never convinced for obvious practical reasons.
I would love all this to work at least as much as you. Really. But the numbers do not persuade.
“But alas, we are locked into some foolish struggle over having to agree on why burning fossil fuels might be a problem.”
There is something fundamentally missing with the above quote taken from the OP.
Fossil Fuel based energy in today’s modern high density populated world is not a vice or luxury.
In a disaster area where sanitation & drinking water is corrupted, a reasonable person would recognize that drinking beer & soda to sustain life is potentially health damaging but until other solutions are provided, drinking beer & soda is better than death.
When discussing energy policy, importance must be placed on available energy resources. Fossil Fuel is life sustaining. Recognition must be made that as of today there are no existing viable short term non-fossil fuel alternatives to maintain the status quo without significant increases in the current unacceptable rate of “loss of life” due to energy deprivation.
We are not locked into some foolish struggle over having to agree on why burning fossil fuels might be a problem. Reasonable people recognize we have a technology void with regard to long term global energy solutions that are being approached in a measured manner by governments and private industry.