The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

A Call To Action on Peak Oil

Tam Hunt and Walter Kohn
June 09, 2009  |  53 Comments

We are being lulled to sleep by temporarily low oil prices caused by the global financial crisis. In fact, low prices may lead to an increased level of consumption and accelerated exhaustion of oil reserves.

“Peak oil,” the point at which global oil production peaks and then rapidly declines, is still not sufficiently on the minds of the American public and policymakers. We don’t know exactly when peak oil will arrive, but it is very likely to occur within ten to twenty years. Some say that it may even be here now – the US Army Corps of Engineers, for example, wrote in a 2005 report: “We are at or near a peak in global oil production.” Peak oil should be at the forefront of everyone's mind – here’s why:

As soon as the global economy recovers, we can expect oil and other fossil fuel prices to shoot right back to where they were last summer, and probably far higher. The International Energy Agency (IEA), formed in the 1970s to act as an energy watchdog for western nations, stated in its 2008 World Energy Outlook:

Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable …The future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply.

This is a call to action of the most urgent kind and we dare not ignore it.

U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 and has declined ever since, apart from a small and short uptick in the late 1970s, and oil imports have increased steadily. We now produce half of what we produced at our peak and import about 60 percent of our oil.

What is the global situation? The United Kingdom struck oil in the North Sea in the 1970s and became a major world producer. But oil production peaked without warning in 1999 and the UK suddenly transformed from an oil exporter into an oil importer just seven years after its oil production peaked. UK North Sea oil production is now down almost 50 percent from its peak.

The same pattern occurred in Indonesia, formerly a member of OPEC. Norway, Russia, and the majority of other oil producers are also past their peak. This is why the IEA regards the situation as so dire: existing oil fields are declining very quickly and new oil fields are not coming online quickly enough to replace them. The IEA concludes that we need three or four additional Saudi Arabias to meet projected demand by 2015!

Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a respected oil forecasting firm that has been very skeptical of the peak oil discussion, also recently forecast that eight million barrels per day of oil projects have been canceled or delayed since the global recession hit, exacerbating the mid-term situation further.

Oil production is not the only issue, however. Natural gas production will follow a similar production decline, probably just a few years behind the oil production decline. Natural gas currently constitutes about one quarter of the world's energy consumption, so this cannot be forgotten in the discussion.

As we’ve seen with food exports such as rice, when fears grow over the domestic availability of key resources (like food, oil or gas), nations will change export policies overnight: last year, Thailand, the world’s second largest exporter of rice temporarily outlawed rice exports. The same thing could very well happen in oil- and gas-exporting nations: as soon as the global economy recovers and the supply shortage becomes clear, major exporters can simply forbid exports, keeping their precious oil and gas for their own use.

Similarly, some countries’ oil and gas exports are already declining quickly. Mexico, while struggling with a major drug war, saw its oil exports plummet over 20 percent in 2008 due to the decline by 33 percent in just one year of its major field, Cantarell. Mexico is the third largest supplier of oil to the U.S. Mexico’s oil revenue has fallen off a cliff as its oil exports and oil prices more generally have plummeted. A full 40 percent of Mexico’s government funding is oil revenue. Clearly, Mexico is facing a formidable future and may not survive as a functioning nation, a conclusion also reached by the U.S. military’s Joint Forces Command in a 2008 report.

The time is now to invest heavily in alternatives to oil and gas, such as energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy and more efficient transportation. Our own dream is a sustainable energy future powered predominately by solar and wind energy, backed up with energy storage and baseload geothermal, biomass and hydro power. Much is happening in these areas already – and this is hopeful: the Obama Administration has budgeted billions of dollars for these efforts and has made energy reform one of its three top priorities. Individuals and communities around the world are also springing into action through various initiatives.

But much more needs to be done. As the IEA concludes: “What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution.”

Walter Kohn (left) is Research Professor of Physics and Chemistry at UC Santa Barbara and a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1998).

 

Tam Hunt is Energy a private consultant and a Lecturer in renewable energy law and policy at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC Santa Barbara.

53 Comments

Register To Comment
John Carr
John Carr
June 17, 2009
....it's 25 years, or less.

I know many of you skeptics of peak oil just can't believe it. Exxon believes it. Their discovery/reserve curves are abysmal. At the current rates of discovery and consumption, they predict a 60% shortfall in production by 2015 (2007 Exxon Internal Report).

That's right. 2015.
It's not time to panic...yet.

Put this in perspective.
If you have children are under 10 years old, they will not be able to rely on an oil economy in their retirement. Period.

We have the choice of doing nothing now, and deferring the costs to our children;

Or, we suck it up, do it now, allowing them to reap the rewards.
One way or the other, someone pays.

Finally, Paul.

Coal plants do not cost $250/kW in the U.S. China is another story.
Coal plants without any environmental controls cost about $400 / kW.
With environmental controls they cost from $650 to $1000 / kW.
For clean coal, Lurgi type combustion, it's $1,200 - $2,000 / kW.
Also, coal boilers have about the same life expectancy as a solar panel.
Electricity is sold in kWh not MW. MW is a rate, kWh is a quantity.

Tim,
The amount of solar area required to power the U.S. is not as large as you might think. It's equivalent to a square, 100 miles per side, or 6.6 million acres. Production at that scale should lower the cost to about $800/kW installed ($300 matl's, $500 install). Subtract the fuel savings, and it becomes the lowest cost alternative. Enough film could be printed with existing tech to install all of this in 15 years. So, it's not all gloom and doom.

The question is...
Do we do it now, while the world economy is still capable?
Or do we push it off on our children?
John Carr
John Carr
June 17, 2009
...withdrawing at the same rate of discovery and production.

Consider we have been increasing the demand for oil continuously for about 100 years. Even if peak oil were the midpoint, we wouldn't have 50 years. Our consumption rate is a least twice the average over the last 100 years. This being the case, conventionally recovered oil will not last more than 40 years. Cheap oil isn't a function of demand, it's a function of perception. Once people perceive oil is truly in decline, emotions will dictate price. So, even the most optimistic are cautious about extending the availability of cheap oil more than 15 years.

Let's talk about doing nothing. Just throwing our hands up and saying, "...you just don't get it... it's a matter of costs..." Okay. What are the costs of doing nothing?
Short term: Not too bad. If you plan to live for less than 10 years, doing nothing is in your best interests.
Long term: The long term costs are very high. Environmental costs aside, the price of oil will not behave. Once the short fall in production becomes a fact of life, the markets will respond as they always have. They will panic and horde, driving the prices up beyond what is reasonable. This will cripple the world economy. We've already seen a small foreshadowing of this last year. The bigger problem is the decline of production will not be slow. It will be rapid. Peak oil means, you're on the losing side of this curve. It is a no-win situation, and it will be rapid. Exploding energy costs will sap the capital markets making money for renewable energy much harder to get. And, the average consumer will have less to spend for improvements on efficiency and energy production. Without an energy bridge, exploding fuel costs are a dead stop on the world economy. Doing nothing is a certain recipe for losing our economy.

Please understand, the optimum window for correcting our energy problems isn't 50 years.
John Carr
John Carr
June 17, 2009
I'm coming in on the tail-end of this, but if anyone is still reading this consider the following:
About the EIA: The EIA is the official government agency that forecasts production and consumption of oil and gas, among other things. Oil and gas production companies are not allowed to make forward looking statements on oil and gas production to help prevent manipulation of price structures. However, the EIA is very optimistic. Being overly optimistic calms nerves and allows the trade of fossil fuels to remain stable on price. Whenever I get depressed I go read an EIA report about the future. It's always uplifting!

About 5 or 6 years ago I attended a nuclear energy conference that included every major player in the nuclear energy field in the U.S., and several major oil companies. Representatives of the EIA were present. The issue of Peak Oil was addressed. Several major oil and energy companies called them on the carpet for understating the magnitude of the problem. After being confronted with the creaming curves, and other oil and gas production data, the EIA has readily available to them, they admitted their forecasts were overly optimistic. Since then they have been a little less optimistic. So, when the EIA says something clearly alarming, pay attention.
Here are a few examples of exuberant optimism:
200 years of coal reserves (EIA) -----> 100 years at current consumption
25 years of reserves if used as the primary transportation fuel
15-25 years to peak oil (EIA) -------> 0-5 years ASPO
Logarithmic decay curve on oil (EIA) -------> Exponential decay curve (everyone else)
50 years of cheap oil (EIA) ------> 2 to 5 years (Exxon)

Marcus,
"the midpoint of hydrocarbon reserves" is not peak oil. Peak oil occurs when we are withdrawing at the same rate discovery and production.

Next page....
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 15, 2009
ooops----make Russia, $138.40 Billion.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 15, 2009
coenraad p--------"The solution: I don't think there is one. If central planning of how to wisely use the available resources was such a great idea, Communism would have trumped Capitalism, not the other way round. The chaos that is Free Market Capitalism, IMHO, actually gives us our best chance to deal with a catastrophe such as Peak Oil. Admittedly we haven't had FMC in the US for a while, but that's a separate issue…"----------

Who says capitalism has trumped communism or central planning? Look around. China is fairing pretty well these days. You owe the Chinesse $767.90 Billion----more than anyone else in the world. You also owe another $78.90 Billion to Hong Kong(also China). You also owe Russia $138.40(for oil), and other Oil Exporting nations $192 Billion. Brazil has switched it's economy from oil to ethanol(biofuel)---and gone from bankruptcy to oil exporting nation with enough resource to be treated as a seperate entitiy----you owe Brazil $126.60 Billion.

Personally, I think we need to follow Brazil's lead and go with what works.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 15, 2009
connraed p.----------"
Thomas Robert Malthus has been wrong for 200 years (and counting). Yet, people still continue to believe that somewhere in the next decade he will be proved right. Sorry guys, won't happen. Here's why.

Earth's carrying capacity for mankind is intricately linked to the level of technology mankind develops. Earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers, because these environment-friendly, low tech people each require too much land to survive."---------

That is wrong. Hunter/gatherers are limited by available resources(not land). The limiting factor is not land, but the ability of the land to support life by producing needed resources food, water, shelter.

Although you are a member of what you consider a "high tech" society---you are STILL limited by exactly the same factors. Hunter/gatherer societies meet the needs of needing large areas of land to survive by becoming nomads. They move from one area to another to use time to recycle the land and replenish their needs. They follow exactly the same strategy that large herbivores follow---the herds move from one grazing area to the next to allow replenishment of grasslands. Grass is a biofuel that herbivores need to survive---grass is renewable----the herds follow the growing grasslands in a migratory pattern that leads them in a ciruclar pattern that follows seasonal and climatic changes to produce new growth. This allows time for the grasslands to recover from grazing. In this way, the resources are renewable and there is always food.

Fossil fuels are the resource that "high tech" human society uses to survive. Fossil fuels are not renewable----at least not in human terms of time. We aren't going to go in and mine out all the coal, or pump out oil and come back next year and find the coal field or oil field is full again. When it is gone, it's gone.
When the resources are gone---so is "high tech" society.
ANONYMOUS
June 14, 2009
Re: "Half truths and scare tactics" contributor, June 10th - - So you think you know more about the realities of "peak oil" than both physics professor and Nobel Laureate, Walter Kohn as well as Tarn Hunt, Lecturer at ES&M in Santa Barbara? You are concerned about "half truths" and "liberals"...OMG...what cave are you living in?
ian page
ian page
June 13, 2009
This discussion as usual is confused because of where you decide to put boundaries around costs of various options, as well as a lack of derivation in the figures. May I suggest http://www.withouthotair.com/ as a source to help out. It's UK centric but its ballpark estimates are all given with sources and derivation, and for the more mathematically inclined each chapter is paralleled by another with the full story . Its a great education and a great antidote to lobby group figures on both sides.
It makes it clear that 1. fixing the transition to renewables will involve serious money...but less than saving the banks 2. It's a massive engineering project which will change the face of the country ( like the industrial revolution , or the US rollout of grid electricity and roads last century).

It is something that has to happen, and most importantly while we still have spare fossil energy to build the huge amounts of steel and concrete we need to jump start renewables. Leave the transition too late and it becomes energetically impossible. as we drop into the energy chasm.
ANONYMOUS
June 12, 2009
Be a part of the solution. The life support system is not going to continue if we do not take action to become sustainable soon. Consider how you impact the rest of the 6 billion (and rising) people
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
"Earth's carrying capacity for mankind is intricately linked to the level of technology mankind develops."
True. Is there a limit in your opinion?

"Earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers, because these environment-friendly, low tech people each require too much land to survive."
Two-part question: 1. How many people can Earth support?, and 2. why does the highest-tech people in the world --the US-- need 25% of Earth's energy reserves and imports 2/3 of its energy consumption; if higher technology equates in less land need, why do we need 5 times more land than we have?

Thanks!
Coenraad Pretorius
Coenraad Pretorius
June 12, 2009
-"Here's a great book: "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change" by William R. Catton. It was researched in the late '70s, and written and published in the early '80s. The forecast might be a bit off, but the message is as current as ever: there's a limit for everything."-


Thomas Robert Malthus has been wrong for 200 years (and counting). Yet, people still continue to believe that somewhere in the next decade he will be proved right. Sorry guys, won't happen. Here's why.

Earth's carrying capacity for mankind is intricately linked to the level of technology mankind develops. Earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers, because these environment-friendly, low tech people each require too much land to survive.

But given modern agriculture, modern water (and wastewater) treatment, modern mining and waste disposal, and somehow the six billion survives. Not a perfect system, but it works.

As we multiply and solve problems, new challenges continue to arise, making sure that the new generations are gainfully employed, where the political system allows. In this way we keep inching forward, always barely ahead of some catastrophe (aka Big Motivator).

-"Right, the "next" technology will save us."-
Who knows what will save us? Mankind is pretty resourceful, though. Especially given the right Big Motivator...

-"One thing is certain: $5/gal gasoline and $150/bbl oil is not the answer..."-
Exactly wrong, Paul! That is the Big Motivator that I am referring to.

-"...the damage to the world economy would be devastating and hostile nations would have most of the money."-
I think you are confusing US economy with world economy, Paul. Those high energy prices are great for the economies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Mexico, etc. etc.

And without those high prices biofuels (or any other aletrnatives) are dead. As we have seen. Repeatedly.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
"I have done the math ... we spend in a year excavating coal, shipping coal, scrubbing coal fumes, (coal scrubbers alone are very expensive) and inserting federal money in coal interests, and you will find a number in the trillions of dollars every year".

Not making light of the misuse of resources, but I'd like to see that math. The GDP is $13.8T, of which 1% is agriculture, 79% is services, and 20% is industry. So mining, transportation and utilities is less than 20% ($2.8T) of the economy. Are you sure the activity in the statement above is "a number in the trillions of dollars"? How many trillions?

Thanks.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 12, 2009
I am not supporting coal, simply countering the unfounded claims that renewables can replace coal at current prices. The reality is that our energy source, and the energy of the world, comes from the cheapest source. So far, it's not renewables.

Coal plants cost $250/KW to build and $30/MW to fuel and operate (including the cost of mining and transporting the coal). Solar thermal costs $6,000/KW to build. Electricity sells for $50-$100/MW, depending on time of day and type of customer. Simple math tells us that solar has a long way to go to compete with existing sources, with or without subsidies.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
"If we spent as much money on [renewable energy] as we do mining and shipping coal alone the energy shortages would evaporate. And no one would even have to unplug their TVs, or scrub the air.."

Tim, for as long we don't tame our insatiable addiction to energy and exuberance, no technology will ever be enough.

Here's a great book: "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change" by William R. Catton. It was researched in the late '70s, and written and published in the early '80s. The forecast might be a bit off, but the message is as current as ever: there's a limit for everything.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 12, 2009
I have done the math, and I pointed it out to you. Pipe dream is an invalid app here, and I resent the implication. Compute how much we spend in a year excavating coal, shipping coal, scrubbing coal fumes, (coal scrubbers alone are very expensive) and inserting federal money in coal interests, and you will find a number in the trillions of dollars *every year* not just once every twenty but **every year**. Now, take that dollar figure and apply it to wind mill installs as well as solar panels, and you will not have to spend that much again for *twenty years*. If you insist that coal is the answer, then that is what you will believe. But it is simply not the truth. We must stop supporting old and dangerous ideals just to keep some rich guys pocket lined! If you do not own coal stock Paul, you should.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
Paul, you're losing me, but you're doing the right thing. Do keep asking questions and you'll learn a lot. I'm honored to participate in your growth.

The vast majority of our (electric) energy consumption is in "buildings", ie, where you and I are right now, our homes, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.
http://architecture2030.org/current_situation/building_sector.html

Again, whereas theoretically possible to live with less electricity, it's practically unfeasible, and you were right, the US wouldn't survive.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 12, 2009
"If we spent as much money on these as we do mining and shipping coal alone the energy shortages would evaporate." (Tim Gard)

Tim - do some math, you'll see this is a pipe dream with current prices. If it were true, we'd stop burning coal and cover the planet with solar and wind sources... it is not happening, even with subsidies.

To add to my quote "THINK"... "USE REALISTIC NUMBERS"

Marcus - don't just think about people and our extravagant lifestyles - think about the rest of the economy that uses the vast majority of our energy (except for Al Gore's house)
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
"...how does the US survive if 37.5% of our electricity is turned off?"

Gee, Paul, you're taking things out of context. The candid answer is to live like when we were little; No McMansions, no SUVs, less ACs, one B&W TV set, vacation at grandpa's ranch, etc. However, again, nobody wants that, me included, AND, the entire economy is predicated on growth and nothing grows without energy.

So whereas theoretically possible, it's practically unfeasible, and you're right, the US wouldn't survive.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 12, 2009
You guys have to stop with this coal / natural gas trip your on. These materials will soon be too rare and too expensive to use. We are here to promote windmills and solar panels. If we spent as much money on these as we do mining and shipping coal alone the energy shortages would evaporate. And no one would even have to unplug their TVs, or scrub the air..

To quote Paul, 'PLEASE... THINK!'
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 12, 2009
"Coal provides 50% of the electricity in the US - we can't survive if 3/4 of that is removed."
=> Yes we can --where did I hear that?--, but nobody wants to give up the right of entitlement to a good exuberant life.

Really? Do tell - how does the US survive if 37.5% of our electricity is turned off? It's not just what is used in homes - you have to consider business, government (actually, we could do with 37.5% less of that), schools, hospitals, etc.

PLEASE... THINK!
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 12, 2009
"...where on earth did you come up with those numbers? Those are pure fantasy."
=> The EIA. I have to agree with you that if comes from Washington is bound not to be for real. LOL.

"OK, then we'll use 75% less natural gas than coal. Sounds easy enough to me. It would not take a great deal of time."
=> Right. The solution is always easy, it's always been under our noses, or it's hidden in a hangar since the Cold War. Indeed, if everybody --me included-- unplugged their idle TVs, a few coal plants would be turned off. But wait, we'll spend $1B in a "smart grid", because our brains can't send a signal to our thumb and index to pull the plug.

"Coal provides 50% of the electricity in the US - we can't survive if 3/4 of that is removed."
=> Yes we can --where did I hear that?--, but nobody wants to give up the right of entitlement to a good exuberant life.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 12, 2009
Fred - you still don't get it... it's a matter of cost. If you convert a 1000MW coal plant to a 250MW gas plant, you have to get the other 750MW from somewhere. Coal provides 50% of the electricity in the US - we can't survive if 3/4 of that is removed.

5000 acres of solar panels (installed today) is NEVER going to be cost effective. If you put that on roofs, as you suggest, you can double or triple the cost of putting in on the ground.

Seriously, if it were as simple as you think it is, it would have been done already. Think about it...
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 12, 2009
The oil people have been rubbing elbows with the political power houses for hundreds of years. Their not going to let a bunch of snot nosed newbies walk into their party and redecorate the room with windmills and solar panels. These powerful people will step on you and grind you into the dirt to protect their grand pappys system. The political spin? We allowed these dip sticks to manipulate our governmental system to protect these people. Ever wonder why either Democrat or Republicans were the only real race horses? I'm afraid the American people have shamed the whole concept of self rule.

Sorry about that, I'll take my orange crate and leave now ...
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 12, 2009
Does anyone have a price on renting three diesel locomotives, 250 coal cars, insurance for the move, diesel fuel for x number of miles, and the excavation costs of removing that much coal from the ground? I'll bet with that price tag alone you could build a solar panel or two ... maybe 100. Maybe 1000. Then you will have to remove that coal a couple more times over a twenty year period I'd bet. (Being facetious.) If we immediately began shifting these funds towards solar and wind I'll bet our real energy problems would drop like a piece of coal rock. But the coal, oil, and natural gas guys do not want that discussed too much, do they?

Tim Gard
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 11, 2009
-------"While the cost of fuel is nil for solar, the construction cost for utility-scale solar is more than what you would spend for the coal AND coal-fired plant in 20 years (the expected life of solar panels). You must also consider the size of the footprint - a coal plant of 1000 MW takes maybe 200 acres - 1000 MW of solar would take over 5000 acres. No environmental damage? Rethink that..."-------------

Well, I think if we install rooftop grid tie solar panels, we haven't used any land at all, and the utility customers are paid for the coal that is not used. They are paid by a check from the utility each month when their grid tie solar panels produce more power than they use. It seems a much more democratic and equitable way of doing things to me.

And there is no land damaged by installing capacity---and no land destroyed for thousands of years by stripmines, watersheds destroyed by acid run off, and the atmosphere stays clean and fresh.

So, exactly how much land, water and air will be destroyed in 20 years of use of a coal burning 1000 MW? I don't know. Perhaps you'd like to figure it out. I'm sure it must be a large number.

0 environmental damage vs. unknown large amount environmental damage

Seems like an easy enough choice to me.

BTW---even if you use 5000 acres of post mounted solar panels as you suggest----when the the panels are removed, the land will return to the way it was. Very quickly. You'll have grassland after one year. Unlike strip mines. I've seen mines abadoned for 50 years where the damage is clearly visible, and almost nothing grows.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 11, 2009
--------As for converting coal-fired plants to gas, there is a tremendous expense, since gas burns hotter than coal, the coal plants are not built to handle the heat, so many internal parts have to be replaced (tubes, dampers, supports, drums, etc.) Either that, or reduce the output by 75% and avoid replacing parts, but then what have you gained?---------

OK, then we'll use 75% less natural gas than coal. Sounds easy enough to me.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 11, 2009
Fred - it's not that easy...

While the cost of fuel is nil for solar, the construction cost for utility-scale solar is more than what you would spend for the coal AND coal-fired plant in 20 years (the expected life of solar panels). You must also consider the size of the footprint - a coal plant of 1000 MW takes maybe 200 acres - 1000 MW of solar would take over 5000 acres. No environmental damage? Rethink that...

As for converting coal-fired plants to gas, there is a tremendous expense, since gas burns hotter than coal, the coal plants are not built to handle the heat, so many internal parts have to be replaced (tubes, dampers, supports, drums, etc.) Either that, or reduce the output by 75% and avoid replacing parts, but then what have you gained?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 11, 2009
Marcus---where on earth did you come up with those numbers?

Those are pure fantasy. We don't need to replace everything. What we do replace, needs to be replaced anyway. You aren't talking about a static system.

Coal mining is expensive. Environmentally and economically. If you build a coal fired plant, you have to have coal. If you use wind or solar, you have no fuel costs---and no environmental damage to speak of compared to coal. There is less need for government regulation and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Less government. No fuel needed. Capital freed to build more renewable energy sources. Federal, state and local governments are all affected.

It would not take a great deal of time. All we do with coal is boil water anyway. We can do that with natural gas. All we do is take out the coal grates in the furnaces and put in gas burners. Like giant burners on a kitchen stove. Everything else stays the same. Buildings, boilers, turbines, generators, controls, distribution grid. But now we have eliminated all the damage and expense of mining coal, and the need for railroads, truck roads and all the other problems of getting the coal and moving the coal. We've also eliminated the problem of particulate pollution,(methane is already a gas--no particles)---and most of the combustion products(natural gas is already used to reduce pollution in high pollution areas). If we capture biomethane, we can mix it in with NG in any proportion---chemically it is exactly the same methane. We need to treat sewage anyway. The more methane we catch and burn in power plants, the less methane is released into the atmosphere. We exchange a high infrared capture gas(methane)---with a low infrared capture gas(CO2). Nature is going to make methane whether we capture it and use it or not. Mixing biomethane with NG as little as 6% means reducing GHG effect.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 11, 2009
So what you are saying Fred is "Can we trust anyone with any type of nuclear device?" Not based on previous history. Markus and Firio, do you think men can be trusted with any nuclear device, whatever their spoken mission is? Just so you know, Einstein thought it to be one of the most terrible devices ever conceived by man and regretteg ever backing it. Was Einstein wrong to take this view of a project he originally backed?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 11, 2009
----------"Oh ya, it was conceived during the cold war but was dismissed because it was soooo much harder to make weapons from."-----------

Which should give you an important clue to the REAL reason for civilian nuclear power. To make nuclear weapons. NO ONE in their right mind would have been happy with nuclear weapons being produced in their backyard---and paying billions and billions of dollars to do so.

So they were wrapped in the pretty paper of lies and deceit, and given the bow of "Peaceful Use of Atomic Power" and sold to the public night and day. In retrospect, it is incredible how stupid people were.
"Duck and Cover"----you can survive an atomic blast by just ducking down and hiding under a table when you hear the air raid sirens.

"Build a Fallout Shelter in you basement."-----Just put some crackers and water in your basement, go down and wait a few days until the radiation disappears and then you can come back out and go about you life like nothing happened. ?????????

"Cheap and Abundant Nuclear Power will wipe out poverty and starvation and make life on earth paradise for everyone." Like North Korea. Like India. Like Pakistan.

"Nuclear Energy will make your life safe and secure" By giving nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia----11 of 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Giving nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia for a little oil is SURE to make us safer and more secure.

And people are STILL believing the same old lies.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 10, 2009
"Thorium based molten salt reactors..."

Right, the "next" technology will save us.

I made a typo above; there are 300 million registered vehicles in the US, not 300,000 as I wrote. Sorry.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 10, 2009
The US has just under 1,000,000 MWs of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear installed capacity. Disregarding growth, 75% of that, about 750,000 MWs at $2 million per MW is $1.5 trillion, and multiplied by 3 or 4 to offset capacity factors, it's about $5 trillion. And as estimates go, just double it; $10 trillion. That's for electricity, electric heat and cooling, etc.

For renewable electric transportation, the rule of thumb is another $5 trillion for the renewable power plants, and $15 trillion to replace the 300,000 vehicles in the US. (I have no idea what to do with airplanes and ships.)

$30 trillion on the back of an envelope.

The US budget is $3 billion, the GDP is $13.8 trillion, and the trade deficit is approaching $1 trillion.

If we want to get off the oil addiction in the next 20 years, we'll need to print 10,000 budgets or 2 GDPs or 30 times the deficit. All this disregarding growth, inflation, the current recession, and the cost to clean the environmental damage we did. I don't think we have that much time or money.

Paul, I admire your willingness to participate in this conversation. Not too long ago I was exactly where you are, calling half truths and scare tactics. Then I started reading, asking, doing the math, and my jaw dropped to the floor. You're almost there!
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 10, 2009

I looked into this one also Paul. It seems that the process involving algae is not what it appears / claims to be. The math says you would have to flood an area the size of Texas and Colorado combined to generate enough bio mass alge to replace the energy used in gasoline today. Offshore would be to expensive due to access and weather damage. I do not recall the total size computated for this, but it was an enormous area. The other was solar panels. The entire North American continate covered with solar panels would solve our transportation energy needs. But no light would reach the ground. But as I am sure you are all aware, there is probably no silver bullet. We will need all of these things to reduce the impact of shrinking oil accesses. As oil increases in price, investments in alternative research will blossum.

You hit the nail on the head ... Git er done! ...
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
It will take a minimum of 15 years, if we get really ambitious. It will probably be over 20 years for renewables to grow to more than 75% of our electricity supply. That will take all renewables: solar, wind, biomass/WtE, geothermal, tidal/hydro, etc.

Algae has the largest potential for transportation fuel, if natural gas and electric vehicles are used.

If the US and the rest of the world were dedicated, like we were with the Apollo mission and the Manhatten Project, we can get it done, because that is what it will take.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 10, 2009
"We will replace fossil fuels with renewables, but it will take a while"
How much time is a while, in your opinion?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 10, 2009
--------"We will replace fossil fuels with renewables, but it will take a while and it will take investment. Most importantly, it needs to be done intelligently, with a free market."------------

What free market? Giving away mineral rights on public lands at bargain basement prices and accepting bribes and lobbyist "gifts" to maintain the status quo of business as usual is not a free market.

It will only take as much time to replace petroleum with fossil fuels as it takes to ramp up production of biofuels. How much time that will take only depends on what we are willing invest in producing biofuels. If we do nothing, then it will take a very long time. If we do everythng we can, it will not take long at all. But if we don't start, it will take forever.

--------"One thing is certain: $5/gal gasoline and $150/bbl oil is not the answer - the damage to the world economy would be devastating and hostile nations would have most of the money."----------

If we do nothing to replace petroleum with biofuels, this is the outcome. No matter how you try to sugar coat it, fossil fuels are a finite resource and will run out.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
No, I haven't read the report, but I have read excerpts and many other reports and publications from respectable sources. I've based my opinion on these and my ability to think.

One thing is certain: $5/gal gasoline and $150/bbl oil is not the answer - the damage to the world economy would be devastating and hostile nations would have most of the money.

We will replace fossil fuels with renewables, but it will take a while and it will take investment. Most importantly, it needs to be done intelligently, with a free market.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
June 10, 2009
Paul, it's clear from your comments that you haven't read the IEA report. Please do so. And by way of background, the IEA is an agency created by the rich western nations (OECD) after the oil crises of the 1970s to ensure that the US and other OECD nations wouldn't be caught flat-footed again by oil issues. As such, they are a highly conservative agency and represent the conservative mainstream of thought. Accordingly, when they issue a report calling for an "energy revolution" and "radical action at the state and local level" to address peak oil and climate change, we should ALL listen.
Coenraad Pretorius
Coenraad Pretorius
June 10, 2009
This article seems high on scare content and low on practical advice. If the authors consider "Peak Oil" to be a serious threat to civilization, it is their prerogative. But a "Call to Action" without specifying what action is little more than noise. "Spend more money" doesn't fly.

The authors also seem to believe that heavy government investment in alternatives to oil and gas is a solution to the threats they perceive. This is not unreasonable: the Internet was after all invented using taxpayer dollars. But anybody who has paid attention to the details of investment in renewable energy coming out of Washington DC cannot seriously think our elected officials will get this one right. Our current Biofuel policy is little more than an under-the-counter subsidy for powerful midwestern lobbyists. More money to those guys is almost guaranteed to achieve naught.

The solution: I don't think there is one. If central planning of how to wisely use the available resources was such a great idea, Communism would have trumped Capitalism, not the other way round. The chaos that is Free Market Capitalism, IMHO, actually gives us our best chance to deal with a catastrophe such as Peak Oil. Admittedly we haven't had FMC in the US for a while, but that's a separate issue…

In the end $150/bbl solves all the problems it creates: at that price we all start to conserve and the door is open for a real alternative to emerge. The failure of such alternatives to emerge in those countries that have long kept fuel costs high, just shows how tough a challenge this is. But a sustained price of $150/bbl or more will eventually smoke out a real alternative, and there is no way to predict what that alternative would look like.

I have other issues with the article, such as the assumption that the global decline in oil production would be "rapid". Define rapid. Why would it necessarily be rapid? Etc. But the big factor is that you can't force the invisible hand. You can only watch it work.
Keith Campbell
Keith Campbell
June 10, 2009
5$ per gallon gasoline is the best thing that could happen to this country. It would make us understand that energy is not an inexhaustable free good
and that we have some responsibility to leave natural resources and a clean environment for future generations. Not for 50 years but 10,000 years.
keith campbell, denver
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
June 10, 2009
Thanks for emphasizing the importance of this situation.

Let's straighten the semantics, which are at the core of the unawareness by the general public:
1. Peak oil is "the midpoint of hydrocarbon reserves", meaning, at midpoint, there's an equal amount of hydrocarbons left as it was extracted. Peak oil is a geological, underground observation.
2. Hydrocarbons aren't produced; they're extracted. The misconception is we can "produce" oil, gas, coal, etc.
3. Hydrocarbons aren't energy sources; they're energy carriers. The sun and geothermal energies produced hydrocarbons.
4. Global peak oil might happen in 10-20 years, or it's happening now, or perhaps it happened 5-10 years ago. It's very hard to assert that. Indeed, US peak oil happened 40 years ago.
5. The planet, over millions of years, removed and captured those hydrocarbons from the atmosphere, which allowed for Homo sapiens and his ancestors to thrive.

The rub of peak oil is when the underground geological and physical constraints meet our daily lives above ground. All the world's economies are predicated on growth. Nothing grows without energy, and 80% to 90% of the world's energy comes from hydrocarbons. I'm very skeptical we have enough time and resources to replace all hydrocarbon-based energies with renewable energies, while meeting the necessary energy growth to keep our economies in balance, and let alone ceasing, recapturing and reversing the effects of hydrocarbon release.

By the way, there's only so much nuclear fuel to go around, and for those crying "drill, baby, drill", the USGS estimates there are 10 billion extractable barrels in the ANWR, or 500 days of US oil consumption, not accounting for growth.

For those in peak oil denial, try something within reach, i.e., peak Chesapeake Bay, peak Puget Sound, peak Lake Meade, etc. It's often said the real obstacle to shift the paradigm won't be ingenuity or resources, but rather denial, morals, mores and ethics.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 10, 2009
Peak oil has already past. If it had not, tar sands in Canada would still be sitting undisturbed because it is too expensive and environmentally damaging to try to extract the oil. The same thing for off shore drilling, it would be far too expensive and damaging to try to drill deep ocean holes using increasingly complex and expensive rigs to try to get at. The same thing for going further and further into the arctic. The harder it is to get to, the more expensive it becomes. That is what Peak Oil means. The harder it is to get to, the more expensive it becomes. The more expensive it becomes, the less there is available. There may still be jars available on the top shelf, but it doesn't do you much good if you cann't reach the top shelf.

----------"But remember, even though we will not burn so much moving around we will still want plastics, fertilizer, machinery lubricating fluids, petrochemicals, and much more I am not even aware of I'm sure. I hope we didn't wait as long as the scientists say we have simply because I depend on oil for so much more than transportation. Oil is the life blood of the mechanical world. We can't replace that with wind mills or solar panels"--------

Biofuels can do anything that petroleum can, and they can do it better.

During WW2, the US built a factory in Wisconsin to make ethanol out of wood to produce Butadeine----to make artificial rubber for tires for the war effort. Germany made non petroleum base fuels. The idea that we depend entirely on petroleum for fuel and raw materials is completely bogus, we never have. The first internal combustion engines were designed and built using biofuels, gasoline had not been invented yet. Nicholas Otto used ethanol. Rudolf Diesel used peanut oil.

flwetdog@hotmail.com if you want more information about alternatives to petroleum.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 10, 2009
And man I want to pack up and move away sometimes too, but running away from problems only allows them free reign.

The issue of limited energy resources is a bit mute if the price of these commodities doubles every ten years. And here's the kicker. The industry wants us to use less today so they can sell it for ten times as much in ten years. But remember, even though we will not burn so much moving around we will still want plastics, fertilizer, machinery lubricating fluids, petrochemicals, and much more I am not even aware of I'm sure. I hope we didn't wait as long as the scientists say we have simply because I depend on oil for so much more than transportation. Oil is the life blood of the mechanical world. We can't replace that with wind mills or solar panels. But I am truly concerned about the capacity of wind and solar to replace oil as a transportation device anyway. We struggle to install units to simply replace coal generated electricity today. Plus, I've read that in Europe they have had to install more coal power plants to back up the installed wind mills when the wind does not blow. I can see that happening. Conservation only occurs when demanded. Is there enough wind out there for transportation apps at the level we depend on today? I surely do not know, but it does not look very promising. "Gee boss, Im sorry I couldn't come to work yesterday, the wind wasn't blowing." ain't gonna get it ...
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
Dan (Dad),

Thanks for your concern, but I will continue to response to attacks like "The nation and its people are a disgrace."

I will continue to question the claim of peak oil (or gas) and global warming, because they are both flawed theories. Unless we act on facts, we are spinning our wheels and causing tremendous waste. We (the US) has sufficient quantities to last past the point of the electricity being entirely supplied by renewables.

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are detrimental to the economy - the same results could be obtained with proactive and economy-positive actions such as feed-in-tariffs, but the FITs cannot be based on the source (solar vs wind vs biomass), they must be based on market prices at the time of generation. This will drive the prices of renewable generation down, instead of the subsidies which keep the prices artificially high (preventing wide-spread adoption of the technologies).

So yes, let's discuss the topic, but's let's also act on facts instead of theories and scare tactics as used in the original article.
Dan Hartman
Dan Hartman
June 10, 2009
My how we digress to silly childish behavior. This is probably why things don't change much. When confronted with barriers such as differing opinion we seem to default to child like reaction. Mr. Holly, if you truly are disgruntled with America, then remain vocal, but offer something constructive. You don't like what is, so what is it you would like? That would be much more constructive and mature a response.
Mr Tousignant, please...your academic credential goes down with every silly out burst. I and most reasonable people don't really care what you think of Mr. Holly or anyone else. Stick with the facts of the matter and lets get our issues in this world resolved to the best of our ability. Intellect dictates there is a fundamental question. Is there or is there not an issue with depleting oil and gas supply. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the use of a finite quantity of anything will ultimately result in the use of the entire resource. let's talk about what we do to resolve the energy issues long term and not who is or isn't kissing parts of anothers anatomy!
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
mike - it will be good to have you leave. Ta-ta.

Do you think you can find a place that doesn't monopolize the economy?

REW removed my comment, but my opinion of you remains - I am NOT ashamed of what I said, nor am I ashamed to be an American. (I would tell you to your face to kiss my a--.)
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
June 10, 2009
Paul, what happened to your comment in which you told me to kiss your a--? You must have deleted it. Ashamed? You should be.

As far as I can tell I am the only one in this pathetic nation who criticizes monopolization of the economy. Both Republicans and Democrats support monopolies and 97% of Americans support these two parties. I don't.

I am leaving the country very soon and it will be good to get away. The nation will soon be totally financially bankrupt.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
Mike Holly wrote: "The nation and its people are a disgrace."

I take exception to your comment, holly. To stereotype an entire nation for a few misguided environmentalists and politicians is shallow and vain on your part. Feel free to leave any time.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
June 10, 2009

Boy, I sure hope you are right. But according to the University of California at Berkley and Drs Duncan and Youngquist we will be reaching peak production very soon if we are not already there. Where exactly do you get your information explaining why these people are wrong?

Tim Gard
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
June 10, 2009
Since when did today's $70 per barrel oil become cheap? The unfortunate fact is that the economies of the world cannot grow much even at that price. If the oil price does go much higher, the economy will crash again. And did you read in the Wall Street Journal this week, that the cheapest supplies of coal have already been recovered and future supplies will need $60 per ton? Half the natural gas wells have been capped and will need about $8 per mmBTU to reopen. It is important the renewable energy lower costs to meet $50 per barrel oil, if not lower, for the economic good of mankind, not to mention the environment.

Too bad we don't have an administration that will encourage real investment in renewable energy with feed-in tariffs, instead of continuing the utility monopoly. Obama seeks only 97% utility-scale wind. Ditto for OPEC. Did you also hear Obama went to Saudi Arabia to tell them we would not be replacing their oil? The only significant difference between his and the previous administration is Bush wouldn't even have to go there for them to know as much. The nation and its people are a disgrace.
ANONYMOUS
June 10, 2009
FOR SALE: ONE STATE The State of Massachusetts is currently for sale through the state legislature or go directly to the governors office if it has to do with renewable energy, commercial wind turbines land or sea. Politicians are looking for lobbyist to sell any and all parts of the state. Currently your state reps are working on the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act. This act takes control away from local towns giving your private property rights to commercial wind turbine contractors. The state is also going to lease all the state parks to the same contractors. To get in contact your state rep by email for a good deal. http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm
The Attorney General will not look into the "Oceans Act" and the "Wind Energy Siting Reform Act".This is more than ethics it looks like a crime. Who are the lobbyist that are taking our personal property rights away?
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
June 10, 2009
This is another example of half-truths and scare tactics being used to promote the radical agenda of the enviro-extremists, just as the global warming theory is, and it does nothing but damage the effort.

The truth is that the US has over 50 years' worth of oil, 200 years' worth of natural gas and 400 years' worth of coal within its borders and near its coasts. We don't access these resources, instead paying hostile nations for theirs, because of the enviro-terrorists and liberals in the government - that's how we went from 30% imports to 70%.

Renewables are definitely the energy source of the future, but the US needs to bridge the time to full scale deployment with our own resources. The taxes and royalties that could be earned from developing our resources would provide all the funding needed for R&D of renewables - far more funding than carbon taxes or cap-and-trade will raise, and without ruining the economy.

The US has enough oil and gas in ANWR, the Bakken field, the shale oil in the western US and off the coasts to put the 'peak oil' discussion to rest. If we were smart about it and employed the people necessary to develop our own resources, the economy would become stronger than ever while still preserving and protecting the environment - but it has to be done based on facts and reasonable thinking, not fear and desperation.
Subir Das
Subir Das
June 10, 2009
I agree with the authors. Even if, (and a very big if), natural oil & gas resources were unlimited, we have to find a way to have a sustainable energy system in place fast, considering the effects of climate change of the traditional energy sources. And this is a global problem. Everybody has to come on board. It might mean technologies developed in the western countries may have to be given practically free to the underdeveloped countries who may not be able to afford it otherwise. In the underdeveloped countries energy needs to be produced from sustainable sources as per capita energy needs go up. If the underdeveloped world follows the same mistakes in producing energy from depleting resources and climate changing resources, then we are plunging even further into chaos. While underdeveloped countries need to get out of poverty, and so energy needs will need to go up, the method of producing such energy needs to be clean right from the beginning.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and solar. He is also a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 6
    Google Reels In Wind-Kite Firm Makani
  • 5
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Rotork plc
  • Everblue
  • SolarInsure, Inc.
  • Trojan Battery Company
  • Associated Renewable
  • SolarEstimate.org
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information