What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?:
Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called “The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change” in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer “Unstoppable” tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap.
A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:
[list follows in the original]
The original article and the ensuing discussion on Real Climate are definitely worth reading.
Just received from the American Wind Energy Association:
AWEA Action Alert: Urge Your Senators to Vote for the Economic Stimulus bill that contains a PTC extension.
Contact your Senators and tell them to vote YES on the Economic Stimulus Package that includes a PTC extension.
The Senate Finance Committee approved a stimulus package that included a pivotally important 1-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC). The package now goes to the full Senate.
The PTC is set to expire at the end of 2008. To maintain existing jobs and to continue growing thousands of new jobs, it is vital that Congress act quickly to extend the wind energy PTC early in the first quarter of 2008. Should we enter late spring without a PTC extension the impacts on wind industry investment will escalate dramatically as the financial community responds to growing uncertainty as to the future availability of the PTC.
I don’t have the time to do a full review, but let me instead simply recommend Joe Romm’s book, Hell and High Water. It’s a survey of the global warming situation, with a emphasis on public policy and what I’ve called the global warming infowar (the reality based community vs. the delayers and deniers fighting to convert the mainstreamers).
I have a few quibbles with the book, such as the way he short-changed the section on hydrogen as a vehicle fuel–particularly striking, given that Romm wrote what I consider to be the book on the topic, The Hype About Hydrogen. But it’s well worth your time and money.
Romm is also the grand poobah over at Climate Progress.
Indeed, the ground here in India’s fertile breadbasket is beginning to look like Swiss cheese. On either side of Kumar’s drill the calm beauty of emerald rice paddies belies a catastrophe brewing hundreds of feet beneath the surface. As the water table drops dangerously low, farmers are investing heavily - and often going into debt - to bore deeper wells and install more powerful pumps. A prayer might just be the best chance for survival.
…
The problem is not only that farmers are mining aquifers faster than they can be replenished. As water levels drop, pumps are also sapping an already fragile and overtaxed electricity grid. And because farmers in Punjab pay nothing for electricity, they run their pumps with abandon, which further depletes the water table. “All these issues are interconnected,” says Saurabh Kumar, who heads the government’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency in New Delhi. “But agreeing on a simple thing is asking for the moon.”That’s exactly what Kumar hopes to do: get politicians, farmers, and bureaucrats to sign on to reforms that will save billions of dollars and reduce the amount of water pumped out of the ground. A pilot program for his nationwide scheme is expected to launch early this year. Farmers will receive new, efficient pumps with meters and prepaid electricity credits allowing them to draw roughly the same amount of water they use now and either pocket the savings if they pump less or pay to pump more. Utilities will be required to upgrade transmission lines to cut losses and improve service.
The program comes at considerable cost (about $7.5 billion) but promises great savings ($2.2 billion a year). Unlike many experts who say the answer to India’s water and energy problems is to charge farmers the real cost of electricity, Kumar argues that “for political reasons, for the next fifty years you cannot charge for energy in the agriculture sector. There would be riots.”
Free electricity being used to deplete dwindling water resources to grow food in India? And you thought getting Americans out of their unneeded SUV’s was a policy challenge.
While this article doesn’t mention global warming-induced climate change, that is a factor, albeit in a much broader context. Around the world humanity has built up many population centers based on original transportation convenience (look at all the cities founded on coastlines or rivers) plus implicit assumptions–there will always be fresh water here, the winter storms and/or summer heat won’t be too bad, we can grow enough food, etc–that are proving to be bad bets. The combination of population pressure and global warming means these places need more resource to sustain human life, and in many cases less resource, particularly fresh water, will be available. That lack of water in underground aquifers or running from mountains in the summer as the prior winter’s snow melt impacts agriculture, hydroelectric and thermoelectric electricity generation, and even transportation, thanks to the difficulty of piloting ships through shallower channels.
In many parts of the world, the primary vector for the impact of global warming on human beings will be the supply of fresh water, not rising sea levels or tropical storms or heat waves.
Warmer Atlantic worsens hurricanes:
When the water in the hurricane breeding grounds of the Atlantic warms one degree in the dead of summer, overall hurricane activity jumps by half, according to a new study.
Scientists have long known that hurricanes get their enormous energy from warm waters, so the warmer the water, the more fuel a storm has to either start up or get stronger. The study calculates how much storm frequency and strength is due to warmer sea water, said author Mark Saunders, professor of climate prediction at the University College London.
Saunders found a distinct numerical connection between the ups and downs of water temperatures and how nasty hurricane season gets. That helps explain why hurricanes have been so much worse in the past dozen years, and even why 2007 — with waters slightly cooler than normal — was an exception and not that bad a hurricane year, Saunders said.
“It’s very surprisingly sensitive to small changes in sea surface temperature,” he said.
His study, published Thursday in the journal Nature, found that changes in wind patterns caused a bigger shift in hurricane activity, but he concentrated his analysis on what sea temperature did to storms. Saunders didn’t look at what caused the temperature fluctuations, although he believes that climate change is a contributing factor.
…
Saunders calculated that for every one degree Fahrenheit increase:• Overall hurricane activity — a combination of frequency and hurricane strength — increases 49 percent.
• The number of intense hurricanes, with winds over 110 mph, increases 45 percent.
• The number of hurricanes of any size increases 36 percent.
• The number of tropical storms increase 31 percent.
For example, 2005 was the most active hurricane season on record, and Atlantic water temperatures were the warmest, about 1.4 degrees above normal. That hurricane season set a new high with 28 storms and 13 hurricanes. Seven of the hurricanes were major storms.
The thing that makes this link-worthy, of course, is not that there’s a connection between warmer sea surface temps and storm activity, but that the relationship is so strong, and what the implies in a warming world.
Mass. Lawmakers Eye Ban On LNG Terminal:
Lawmakers from the south coast of Massachusetts are testifying in favor of a bill that would prevent construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in Fall River.
The measure would mandate that a new LNG terminal be built nearly one mile away from residential areas.
If passed into law, it would kill an LNG terminal proposed by Weaver’s Cove Energy.
Various government studies have found that fire from a terrorism attack against a tanker carrying LNG could ignite so fiercely it would burn people one mile away.
And this is very far from being the only such item that shows up in my daily Google alerts. No one wants one of these terminals nearby, and the US is on a path to desperately needing them in the coming years. The amount of natural gas we can import from Canada and Mexico will decline markedly, meaning we’ll have to import more of it from overseas (mostly Russia and Persian Gulf nations), and the only way you can import natural gas (except for pipelines) is through an LNG terminal.
For a Canadian example, see: New drive under way to head off LNG project
Environmental Capital: Following the Greenbacks:
Welcome to Environmental Capital, The Wall Street Journal’s new daily blog about the business of the environment. It’s not just about melting ice sheets. It’s about the flow of money.
The global-warming debate is at a tipping point that makes it a massive economic story. There’s widespread agreement that climate change is an issue that isn’t going away. The real debate is over what the world will do about it – and who will foot the bill. That scramble for solutions already is beginning to redistribute capital among countries, companies and investors. We hope to follow that ferment.
There’s no end of hyperbole in the hubbub about saving the planet. Carbon offsets, renewable energy, hybrid cars – all are sensible ideas drawing massive amounts of investment. How much they do for the planet will depend on the details of how they’re rolled out. We’ll drill into those details.
The blog will provide multiple daily takes on the business of the environment, from corporate moves to regulatory shifts to investment analysis. Each morning will start with Green Ink, a roundup of news from around the world that will mine the dead-tree media and the blogosphere alike. Then we’ll weigh in throughout the day with posts looking at the companies, people and ideas shaping this new energy landscape. We’ll bring in voices from around the Journal: reporters covering different parts of the globe and different players in the economy.
EnviroWonk.com was created by Hank Green and Dave Loos. Hank started EcoGeek.org a couple years ago and felt that the world needed a politics blog. So he started talking to his friend Dave, who’d spent a few years in D.C. covering environmental politics for Greenwire, a subscription based newswire.
Of course, with their powers combined, there was no choice but to start up an Eco-Politics blog. And as dave is undoubtably an envirowonk, the name just sprang into existence.
We like to think that EnviroWonk fills a surprisingly empty niche. Enviros can complain all the want about being underserved in the 2008 elections, but take a look at the blogosphere and you’ll notice we’re underserved here as well. EnviroWonk finally fills that void, with insightful, informed, commentary. And yes, with the world the way it is, it’s hard not to crack a joke now and again.
Ever the optimist, I’m hopeful that both of these new sites add something useful to the ongoing conversation. All niceties aside, I’m slightly more confident about the motives and therefore the results we’ll see from EnviroWonk.com than Environmental Capital, if only because the latter is part of Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling media empire.
But both sites are highlighting critical areas in our collective ongoing efforts to deal with global warming. I know that many people (some of whom aren’t shy about e-mailing me) don’t share my endless fascination with public policy and the business side of our evolving situation. I think that’s a shame, because of the importance of these arenas to our shared future. Public policy can have an enormous influence on how we extract and consume fossil fuels–think of the ramifications of one of my favorite notions, replacing the payroll tax in the US with a much higher federal gasoline tax–and all signs are that we’re headed for a much more activist role for federal, state, and local governments. Whether you think that’s a good thing (as I do) or a bad thing, it’s in everyone’s best interest for as many consumers and voters to know what’s going on and to get involved in the process. You know–all that public activism stuff I yammer on about.
The business side is equally important, simply because so much of the R&D to develop new technologies, whether funded privately or publicly, is done by for-profit interests that then (attempt to) turn them into products. Wind turbines, wave and tidal generators, thin film solar panels, more fuel efficient vehicles, etc. plus the army of people it takes to sell and service them, are all part of the capitalistic mix. These companies are on the leading edge of the effort to reshape our entire economy in response to the growing awareness of the global warming mess we’re in, as well as rising oil prices.
Along similar thematic lines, see Warming Law, Hill Heat, and cleantech.
Researchers from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Amherst College have linked the methane production of a subsurface consortium of fermentative and methanogenic bacteria in shale rock to increases in concentrations of atmospheric methane associated with the retreat of the continental ice sheets. The study also concluded that these bacteria produced large amounts of methane in a relatively short time.
Steven Petsch, assistant professor Geosciences at U Mass-Amherst, and his colleagues studied natural gas reservoirs in Michigan’s Antrim Shale. Their results are published in the February issue of the journal Geology.
Bacteria digested the carbon in the rocks and made large amounts of natural gas in a relatively short time, tens of thousands of years instead of millions. This suggests that it may be possible to seed carbon-rich environments with bacteria to create natural gas reservoirs.
—Steven Petsch
The study also helps explain high levels of methane in the atmosphere that occurred between ice ages, a trend recorded in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica.
When the ice sheets retreated, it was like uncapping a soda bottle. Natural gas, which is mostly methane, was released from the shale into the atmosphere.
—Steven Petsch
The article is here (subscription access), and the press release about the paper is here.
So, what does this mean? As best I can tell, it’s distinctly bad news. The polar regions are already warming much quicker than expected, and there’s a truly mind blowing amount of ice on the move and/or melting in Alaska, Greenland, the Arctic, and the Antarctic. As best I can tell from my layman’s reading of the situation, the “methane surge” effect portrayed in the Petsch paper has yet to kick in, which only increases the possibility of a major “methane burp”, as others have called it, creating an enormous positive feedback effect. (The “methane burp” typically refers to the release of methane from defrosting tundra and undersea methane hydrate deposits.)
Again, this all ties back to the big questions: How much CO2 can we emit before we encounter truly horrific human impacts from global warming, and how much worse will global warming get, thanks to CO2 we’ve already dumped into the atmosphere, even if we very aggressively reduce future emissions?
For me, the most terrifying part of this mess is that we really don’t know the answers to those questions with any confidence. The rate of change we’re seeing, especially at the poles, is so far ahead of the predictions of the world’s best climate scientists that we should consider their advice–reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050–as a starting point, not a final goal.
The “magic ppm number issue” is one I’ve talked about before–just last month, in fact. Then I quoted an article in which James Hansen says that the magic concentration level at which global warming turns into an all-out disaster is not 550 ppm of CO2 or even the more recently quoted 450, but 350, which is less than the current level of about 383.
But we’re not talking about a binary state–exceed X ppm and we have sea levels rise 20 meters, and heat waves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes decimating cities around the world, but stay just under that level and everything is just peachy. We’re already locked in to further warming, even if all new CO2 emissions stopped today. Given the feedbacks involved and our incomplete understanding of them, there’s no way to be sure just how bad things would get over the next 20 or 30 years.
One thing we can be sure of: The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the worse things will get.
Administrivia: I meant to post something yesterday, but had a Major Computer Problem, which resulted in the loss of most of my e-mail in box as well as a considerable portion of my day. If you sent me something yesterday, please consider it lost to the big bit bucket in the sky and resend it. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Ultra-Simple Wind and Solar Mapping:
It’s one thing to decide to go solar…it’s quite another to figure out if it will be economical for you. We hear a lot about how cheap wind and solar can be, but if there’s no sun or wind where you live, it’s never gonna work out.
Which is why it is extremely vital that we have a detailed understanding of where in the world is sunny and windy. Well, to completely eliminate all confusion on that front, we have 3tier’s Firstlook service.
The map basically plots a gigantic set of data on wind and solar, and then averages the points between that data set. As such, you can figure out exactly how much solar and wind you can get out of any spot in America (averaged yearly.)
A seriously cool cyber toy for energy geeks.
It probably has some sort of practical application, too.
The one odd omission is data for the areas over the Great Lakes. Some other wind resource maps I’ve seen include those areas, which have astonishing amounts of wind just waiting to be tapped.
Shell: Conventional oil peaks within 7 years:
The oil company with the best strategic planning says the day of reckoning is nigh:
World demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years, according to Royal Dutch Shell.
The oil multinational is predicting that conventional supplies will not keep pace with soaring population growth and the rapid pace of economic development.
Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, said in an e-mail to the company’s staff this week that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.”
Oh boy. Here we go again.
As I said on Joe Romm’s site, which is the source for the above quote:
So, if supply keeps rising but demand rises by a larger amount, then we’ve still hit peak oil?
Uh, no, we haven’t. Peak oil is the point of global rate of oil production, literally the all-time maximum supply. In terms of defining the date of peak oil, a much narrower view than we should be taking, obviously, supply not meeting demand isn’t an issue.
And besides, Chris Skrebowski is right–the actual production peak will come in 2011 +/- 1 year.
Wal-Mart: We’re in Charge Now, Let Us Fix Things:
[CEO Lee Scott] went even further to say that Wal-Mart is working with major car companies on electric vehicle initiatives, hinting that they may someday have wind turbines in parking lots so that people can charge their EVs renewably. OK…yeah…that would be pretty cool.
…
Read more at the NYTimes and see the speech from Wal-Mart
I’ve also seen reports that Wal-Mart is talking with Chinese car companies about having them build EV’s they can sell in their US stores.
OK, now that your head has stopped spinning, let’s think about this for a second.
EV’s will, in general, move vehicles much closer to being a consumer electronics item than they’ve ever been before. No engine, no transmission, no fuel or exhaust systems, all replaced by a big honkin’ battery and one or more electric motors. Such simplified vehicles–imagine a 21st century version of the original VW Bug–would be a nearly perfect fit for Wal-Mart or any other large retail chain that’s suddenly decided it’s on a mission from God to save the planet.
So, what’s not to like? Well, for starters this is Wal-Mart we’re talking about, a company that has created more enemies with their labor practices than you can count, so I’m very wary of anything that ruthless a company does in the energy area until I see results. I do give them credit for their efforts to push CFL’s and reduce energy consumption and packaging in their products, but selling EV’s? That one gives me a pre-emptive case of the heebie jeebies (to use a technical economics term).
Hawaii Plans Big Solar Power Arrays at Airports, Harbors:
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has unveiled a plan to develop large solar power arrays at 12 locations around the sunny state, highlighting what she calls “her administration’s commitment to developing renewable energy in Hawaii.”
Under the plan, the state Department of Transportation, DOT, Airports Division is soliciting proposals from private companies to develop photovoltaic systems that could generate as much as 34 megawatts of electricity at 11 DOT sites, as well as the Hawaii Foreign-Trade Zone in downtown Honolulu.
All 12 systems are scheduled to be completed and operational within the next 24 months.
We are pleased.
(Received in e-mail)
AWEA Legislative Action Alert: Congress Needs to Pass a Production Tax Credit Extension Now!
Urge your Members of Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit immediately
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) is set to expire at the end of 2008. To maintain existing jobs and to continue growing thousands of new jobs, it is vital that Congress act quickly to extend the wind energy PTC early in the first quarter of 2008. Should we enter late spring without a PTC extension the impacts on wind industry investment will escalate dramatically as the financial community responds to growing uncertainty as to the future availability of the PTC.
Contact your Members of Congress and urge them to extend the PTC immediately.
Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns:
Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.
Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn’t result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region’s utilities could be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies.
Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.
“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”
An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines.
Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant.
…
An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy. Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants.While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal. Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months — an unusually large amount — to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants. And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather.
At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP. The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet — just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant’s license.
Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet — less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.’s McGuire nuclear plant. The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago.
…
“Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour,” said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. “It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer.”At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines. But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems — that is, the water is constantly reused. Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought.
Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region’s reactors every day to cool used steam. Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water. The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material.
…
Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment. Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama.The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun. By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still — too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA. So the utility shut down a reactor.
It really is this simple: The climate changes triggered by global warming amount to a massive rewriting of the rules that governed how society does everything, and in particular will have profound effects on our production and consumption of energy.
The energy impacts will take three forms:
The electricity generating part of this mess is especially vexing, and I’m not sure how we get out of it, short of building dozens of thin film solar PV plants (with government loans, if needed) and flooding the market with dirt cheap solar panels, plus building wind, wave, and tidal plants at rates vastly higher than anything we’ve seen to date. It’s almost enough to make one, oh, I don’t know, write a book about it.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The end of cheap oil: Are you ready?:
A few years ago, I discovered “Hubbert’s Peak,” a theory that the world’s oil production will decline in this decade as oil becomes harder to find and extract from the ground. That discovery made me realize that my profession for the last 35 years, supply chain management, was woefully unaware of and unprepared for a development that would change the way we do business forever.
My discomfort started around the time oil prices increased from $34 per barrel in January 2004 to $53 per barrel in October of that year. During that same period, I attended two of the premier educational events in the supply chain world. Of the 300-plus breakout sessions offered at those events, not a single one discussed the oil situation and its potential impact on the supply chain.
My perspective on the looming oil crisis may be unique because of my family background and birthplace. I was born into a railroad family and began my supply chain career as a railroad clerk at age 16 in a rail yard in Dallas, Texas. Growing up in Texas brought me into contact early with the oil “bidness,” as we say in my home state. I remember seeing gas flaring off oil wells at night, and the smell of petroleum wafting in the air. Back then, Texas pumped more oil than any other region in the world. The state was so influential in the oil industry that the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates oil production in the state, was the model for today’s Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
But what most profoundly shaped my view was my experience in 1973, when I was working for a tank-truck carrier in Houston and saw oil prices triple as a result of the Arab oil embargo. I watched as rising oil prices and shortages caused high inflation, recession, unemployment, rationing, plant closings, transportation equipment shortages, and long lines at gas stations. At that point, I knew at a gut level that oil is the lifeblood of our economic system; that high oil prices have an undeniable impact on that system; and that as a supply chain professional, I should know what was going on in the oil patch.
I am now convinced that, unlike the events of 1973, the situation we face today is not a short-term predicament. It’s a multifaceted problem. It is unlike anything we’ve encountered before. It is non-negotiable. It will not be easy. It will change everything.
The time to prepare is short because reducing our dependence on cheap oil will take decades. Supply chain professionals will have to examine alternatives to current practices and consider new strategies in preparation for the end of the era of cheap oil.
To put it bluntly, the wolf is howling outside the door and may already be in the room.
Hubbert’s Peak is about what goes on underground, but global demand, geopolitics, the health of the oil industry, and the environment are aboveground factors that add complexity and risk. This article will look at each of these factors, examine alternatives, and suggest mitigation strategies in the context of supply chain performance.
I’m always on the lookout for peak oil primers we can force on suggest to friends and relatives, and this one is well above average. It’s a little on the long side as these things go, and it ventures just a bit closer to panic mode than I’m normally comfortable with, but I wouldn’t hesitate to e-mail a link to it to those on my personal distribution list (which I will as soon as I finish this post).
Those who do likewise will get 50 bonus karma points, so fire up that e-mail client and get crackin’, people.
Let’s try a little experiment: An open thread like those on DailyKos, one where youse guys kick off the conversation. (I’ll post some links an’ such later today. Right now, I’m up to my baby browns in outline and research work on The Book, which is going pretty well, thank you very much for asking.)
So, what’s on your e+e overloaded minds today?
Forgive me while I publicly ponder a bit about where I think we’re headed on the world oil front, and how I think some of the trends already in evidence will play out in the short- to mid-term.
First, a quick recap:
OK, so what’s next?
What do you see in your crystal ball?
Update: Sorry for the omission and late addition. I was so focused on the details that I forgot one of the biggest questions of all in my road map, the date of peak oil. Until I see evidence that convinces me otherwise, I’m sticking with Chris Skrebowski’s 2012 date for the all-time, world peak of oil production.
I posted the other day about the evidence that Antarctica is losing ice at a much faster than predicted clip. Now we have evidence that Greenland is also doing its part to redefine the meaning of the word “glacial” as a synonym for “really slow”.
Warming Climate Accelerated Greenland’s Thaw, Scientists Report :
Climate change led to accelerated melting of Greenland’s ice sheet during the past half-century, scientists said in a study that adds to evidence suggesting sea levels will rise faster than expected.
Global warming has led to a “significant increase'’ in Greenland summer warmth and ice sheet melt and runoff since 1990, according to the study, published yesterday in the Journal of Climate. In a review of ice thaw from 1958 to 2006, scientists determined that the five biggest melts have occurred since 1995.
The largest thaw — 453 cubic kilometers of ice (109 cubic miles) — was in 1998, followed by 2003, 2006, 1995 and 2002, respectively, according to the report. The ice thaw in Greenland supports what scientists are finding in Antarctica and Alaska, said Konrad Steffen, a co-author of the study and professor of geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
“They all give the same story: ice is moving faster into the ocean, and that will add to the sea-level rise,'’ Konrad said in an interview yesterday. He said that preliminary data suggests Greenland had its largest melt last year.
…
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica hold enough water to raise sea levels by about 70 meters (230 feet) if they melted completely.Changes have also been reported in Alaska’s Kennicott Glacier, where warming has caused an increasing amount of water to get inside and under the ice, causing the glacier to move and melt more quickly, according to a separate Nature Geoscience study published this week.
There’s no nice way to put this, so I won’t try to find one: The world continuing to pump over 27 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year (just from energy consumption) when we’re obviously very far behind the curve in understanding what the hell is going on at the poles and with global warming in general is like playing a global version of Russian roulette without even knowing how many bullets are in the gun.
Despite the fact that the evidence is piling up even faster than glaciers and snow packs are retreating around the world, the delayers and deniers won’t be dissuaded. Why should facts get in the way of their ideology- and greed-fueled crusade? Just as problematic and potentially dangerous will be those who truly are pure of intent who argue that there isn’t enough fossil fuel in the ground to trigger a global warming disaster. As I’ve pointed out before, the basic premise of those analyses is that we know not only how much of each of the fossil fuels is in the ground and extractable, but that we know the impact of each additional unit of CO2 emitted. While we probably have a decent enough handle on the former number, it’s increasingly clear that certain key portions of what we thought we knew about the latter–mostly the ice sheet response to warming–was painfully optimistic.
Focus the Nation is a national teach-in on January 31, 2008, engaging millions of students and citizens with political leaders and decision makers about Global Warming Solutions.
We stand at a unique moment in human history. Decisions that are ours to make today – to stabilize global warming pollution and invest in clean energy solutions – will have a profound impact not only on our lives and the lives of our children, but indeed for every human being who will ever walk the face of the planet from now until the end of time. At this moment in time, we owe our young people one day of focused discussion about global warming solutions for America
More than just that one day, Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America is an unprecedented educational initiative, involving over a thousand colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, faith groups, civic organizations and businesses. Focus the Nation is a catalyzing force helping shift the national conversation about global warming towards a determination to face this civilizational challenge.
A teach-in is a day when an entire school turns its attention to a single issue—when faculty, students and staff put aside business as usual, and focus the full weight of campus engagement on one topic.
The key to a successful teach-in is widespread faculty involvement. Focus the Nation challenges participating schools to engage at least fifty faculty members in their role as educators (as well as students, staff, alumni, and community members). With fifty plus faculty engaged from disciplines across the curriculum—art, science, politics, psychology, engineering, philosophy—the event will involve thousands of students on each campus, and millions of students nationwide.
Faculty will say yes to involvement for two reasons. First, the Focus the Nation model requires them to talk for only 10 minutes in a subject area close to their discipline, and then help lead a half an hour discussion. Faculty do not have to be climate change experts to participate, nor invest heavily in preparation. Second, faculty across the curriculum are eager to be asked. As educators and as parents, they understand the magnitude of the global warming challenge, and are looking for an opportunity to engage with students on this critical issue. And once 50+ faculty are involved, then Presidents and Deans will be supportive. Most critically, thousands of students will attend, because faculty will require them to go, or give them extra credit, because other faculty will “focus” their classes, and travel with them to attend the sessions, but primarily because global warming solutions will be the exciting focus of discussion that day. Using this model, we view 2 million students nationwide as a realistic participation goal.
For high schools unable to build a teach-in, and for faith organizations and civic groups, there is a second way to Focus the Nation: host a screening of our free, live interactive webcast, THE 2% SOLUTION, the night of Wednesday, January 30th. (Showing The 2% Solution is also the way to kick-off your teach-in)
Pump Prices: Will Drivers Finally Squeal For Real?:
Are American drivers finally nearing a tipping point?
With nationwide gasoline prices averaging over $3.00 a gallon for the third week in a row, speculation has been rife about when high gas prices will actually lead to less driving. A recent Congressional Budget Office study found higher gasoline prices caused Californians to drive a tiny bit less and a tiny bit slower.
Conventional wisdom, backed by a slate of recent academic research, argues that America’s appetite for gasoline is basically inelastic: There just aren’t too many commuter trains in the suburbs.
At the same time, energy costs, including gasoline, have fallen as a share of consumer expenses in recent decades, even as vehicle fuel economy has improved. All that makes it easier to stomach $3.00 gas.
But new data today from the Energy Information Administration suggests we may be closer to 1981—when retail gasoline prices peaked in inflation-adjusted terms—than we realized. No matter how you adjust for inflation, retail gasoline costs seems to be as expensive as it was in April 1981, the EIA says.
What’s more, the fuel mix of American households has shifted over the last quarter-century. Gasoline has become more predominant at the expense of fuel oil. And because they spend relatively more on energy, including gasoline, the working poor get hit hardest.
With the R-word already out there, many economists figure, something’s got to give. Will it come at the pumps?
OK, let me spend a minute or three dissecting and opining about this.
Yes, gasoline demand in the US is very highly inelastic. Not as inelastic as the classic Econ 101 example, insulin, but pretty close. (And let me remind you once again what inelasticity really means: It’s the state where a change in price of X percent triggers a change in demand of less than X percent. In other words, it coincides with the scenario where the producers can conspire to reduce the supply and actually make more money, since overall revenue will be higher even at the lower quantity/higher price point. Suggest a market strategy by, oh, I don’t know, OPEC or Russia, perhaps, when dealing with a huge consumer they don’t particularly like?)
Yes, a part of this inelasticity is caused by the lack of ready alternatives. The entire US economy and infrastructure as it exists now has grown up in the age of cheap petroleum. When the price of gasoline rises a significant amount and stays there it’s literally a case of the rules being changed in the middle of the game.
But we should not, by any means, assume that this is the only source of inelasticity. Look around the road when you’re traveling some time, and objectively analyze what you see. Very few people car pooling, people driving much larger vehicles than needed, and people driving like Dario Franchitti coming out of turn four at Indy.
Car pooling is basically applicable to traveling to/from work or school. Push gasoline prices high enough, and people will suddenly rediscover the wonders of in-person, human conversation while commuting. This has the potential to save a lot of gasoline very quickly; even two people in a car results in half the fuel per person-trip, so you don’t have to go to four-up, Bumstead-level carpooling to achieve real savings.
Many households have more than one vehicle, and those vehicles differ substantially in their fuel efficiency. Higher gasoline prices will push people into selecting the most efficient vehicle available and applicable. In the aftermath of Katrina, when US drivers were facing the horrors of (gasp!) $3/gallon gasoline and uncertainty about supply, my wife and I noticed a shift in the mix of vehicle on the road–it was as if many of the light trucks (pickups, SUV’s, minivans) had been replaced with mid-size or smaller sedans. Again, this can save a lot of gasoline in the short run, with very little pain.
Lay off the hard acceleration and the average driver will save 20 to 30% on gasoline consumption. I know I do. You can start this practice the very next time you drive somewhere, and the up-front expense is $0.00.
And let us not forget downsizing your car or buying a hybrid, which many more people are already doing, or the really boring stuff like batching together errands to eliminate unnecessary driving.
My point in all of this is simply that right now American drivers could easily knock 30 to 40% off their personal gasoline consumption, and save even more with longer term steps. But very few of us are doing it. Why? Are we masochistic or just plain stupid? The truth is many of us don’t think about the money we’re spending and all the CO2 and other Bad Things we’re dumping into the air in terms of something we can control. When gasoline gets expensive enough for a long enough time–$5/gallon for six months?–a lot of American drivers will suddenly become convinced it’s time to pick some of that low-hanging conservation fruit.
Global oil supply challenges will drive gas to $4.50 gallon: CIBC World Markets (quoted in its entirety, emphasis added):
Crude prices to hit $150 a barrel within the next five years
NEW YORK, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - CIBC (CM: TSX; NYSE) - U.S. consumers should brace for $4.50 gallon gas prices in the near future as global oil supply will increasingly have trouble keeping pace with demand, forecasts a new energy report from CIBC World Markets.
The report predicts that surging demand in developing economies combined with accelerated depletion of existing supply and widespread delays in getting new oil fields up and running will see the global supply of oil fall as much as eight million barrels a day below U.S. Department of Energy and International Energy Agency estimates by 2012.
“Those projections ignore two fundamental forces that have, in recent years, brought global production to a virtual standstill,” says Jeff Rubin, Chief Strategist and Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets. “The first is depletion. You have to run faster to stand still. Depletion from existing fields has accelerated to over four percent, a rate that currently cuts nearly four million barrels per day out of each year’s production.
“The second fundamental force blowing up supply forecasts is the huge project delays and massive cost overruns associated with many of the world’s largest new oil mega-projects. From Kazakhstan to Nigeria’s Delta region, protracted delays in some of the world’s largest energy mega-projects will have huge impacts on actual supply growth over the next five years.”
As part of its research, CIBC World Markets reviewed nearly 200 new oil projects slated to start production over the next five years and found that scheduled production timelines are far too optimistic, with project delays the norm, not the exception, among the group.
It found that heavy reliance on increasingly high cost and technically challenging fields like the Kashagan project in Kazakhstan, Russia’s Sakhalin II and Canadian and Venezuelan oil sands have left world supply growth vulnerable to a seemingly never-ending series of project delays.
Mr. Rubin notes that delays in the latter two countries will shave over 700,000 barrels a day from earlier 2012 production forecasts. In some nations, soaring development costs have resulted in complex and often tense re-negotiations of royalty agreements with host countries. Some have even led to either a temporary or indefinite suspension of operating licenses.
“Of course, stagnant conventional world oil production underlies the recent problems associated with harvesting unconventional supply. Virtually all of the increases in global oil production have occurred from deepwater fields or oil sands, with conventional production seemingly stuck at 2005 levels of 67 million barrels per day.”
These project delays are also happening at a time of accelerated global depletion in existing fields. The rate has climbed to over four percent, which cuts nearly four million barrels per day out of each year’s production. The recent increases are in part, related to the growing importance of offshore, and, in particular, deepwater fields, which have depletion rates twice that of conventional fields.
“Cliff-like depletion rates have already been in evidence in the North Sea and now the huge Cantarell field in Mexico,” adds Mr. Rubin. “Since 2000, offshore fields have been the single-largest source of new supply growth. As their weight in total production increases, future depletion rates will continue to rise. Even holding the current depletion rate constant over the next five years, we must produce nearly 20 million barrels per day of new oil just to offset what will be lost through depletion during this period.”
Mr. Rubin notes that these major project delays and increasingly rapid depletion will result in a supply increase of only about three million barrels a day by 2012 - far below the 10 million barrels projected by the International Energy Agency. With oil demand soaring in places like China, India, Russia and in the world’s largest oil-producing countries themselves, a widening demand-supply gap will push crude oil prices to as high as $150 a barrel by 2012.
“Soaring rates of car ownership in countries like Russia and China have boosted fuel demand in both countries,” says Mr. Rubin. “For example, gasoline, a key driver of rising oil use, is growing at over six percent in both countries. But an even more important factor has been massive price subsidization in OPEC countries which has spurred extraordinary near-double- digit growth in oil demand.
“Not only is there virtually no price elasticity between OPEC’s own oil consumption and world oil prices but paradoxically, domestic consumption of oil in those countries may actually increase with rising world oil prices because higher crude prices boost incomes, which in turn, further boosts demand for massively subsidized domestic gasoline.”
The result of this unchecked soaring demand in most oil-producing nations means they will not be able to add any additional exports to meet the surging demand in developing countries. Since crude demand in countries like China and India is far more income-elastic than price-elastic, these countries are likely to outbid OECD markets for increasingly scarce global supply.
The OECD, the largest global oil market today, is much more price sensitive and oil consumption, which has already fallen over the last two years, will decline by almost four million barrels per day over the next five years in response to steadily rising prices.
In the U.S. alone, with soaring crude prices pushing the cost of gasoline to $4.50 a gallon, Mr. Rubin expects American demand for oil to drop by 10 per cent or nearly two million barrels a day by 2012.
The complete CIBC World Markets report is available at:
http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/occrept65.pdf [8 page, 670KB].
CIBC World Markets is the wholesale and corporate banking arm of CIBC, providing a range of integrated credit and capital markets products, investment banking, and merchant banking to clients in key financial markets in North America and around the world. We provide innovative capital solutions and advisory expertise across a wide range of industries as well as top-ranked research for our corporate, government and institutional clients.
To paraphrase what the talk show host Sam Seder says when he’s really serious about getting his listeners to take action on something:
This web site is no longer free.
If you want to keep reading this site, you must do the following:
Yes, you’re on the honor system here, since I have no way to verify that you’re paying your dues. At least none that I’m free to talk about in public.
Need a place for offshore wind project news in the US and Canada, complete with one of those clickable Google maps? No problem–check OffshoreWind.net.
And speaking of such projects, Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power:
Ontario is preparing to lift a controversial moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes that has been in place for nearly 14 months, the Toronto Star has learned.
A Ministry of Natural Resources official says the department is “getting ready” to make an announcement and that new minister Donna Cansfield is “anxious to demonstrate leadership in the area.”
Jamie Rilett, a spokesperson in Cansfield’s office, confirmed that the ministry is currently revisiting the moratorium. He said a decision would be made “shortly.”
Industry sources also confirmed the moratorium’s end is imminent.
My only gripes about this are [1] projects in Lake Ontario likely won’t be visible from the lake shore in Rochester, and [2] those wacky Canadians are likely to beat the US to the punch in putting turbines in the Great Lakes.
For those not familiar with Lake Ontario, I can tell you will absolute certainty that it’s freakin’ windy. Many times my wife and I have driven the 5 miles from our house to the lake shore at various times of the year, but especially in the winter, and experienced some pretty relentless and strong winds, even at ground level. I can only imagine what the winds are like 100 feet or so up. Oh, wait–I don’t have to imagine.
But there may be hope for another US wind project, even if not within oogling distance of my house, Cape Wind Takes Step Forward:
Cape Wind has passed a milestone at the start of its final year of permitting with the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the lead Federal permitting agency, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior.
According to the report, Cape Wind will not have major impacts on birds, fish, marine mammals, fishing, tourism, or on sea or air navigation as was contended by some opposed to the project. The report also found that Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound is environmentally and economically superior to the alternative sites that were studied and that Cape Wind will provide a needed supply of electricity and improve electric diversification and reliability.
See the MMS page about the report here or directly download the report (718 page(!), 5.5MB PDF).
General Motors CEO: oil has peaked:
The world’s biggest car maker, General Motors, believes the global oil supply has peaked and a switch to electric cars is inevitable.
In a stunning announcement at the opening of the Detroit Motor Show yesterday, GM’s chairman and chief executive officer, Rick Wagoner, said ethanol was an important interim solution to the demand for oil, until battery technology gave electric cars the range of petrol-powered cars.
GM is working on an electric car, the Volt — due in showrooms in 2010 — but delays in battery technology have slowed its development.
Mr Wagoner cited US Department of Energy figures that showed the world was using about 1000 barrels of oil every second and demand was likely to increase by 70% in the next 20 years.
“There is no doubt demand for oil is outpacing supply at a rapid pace, and has been for some time now,” Mr Wagoner said. “As a business necessity and an obligation to society we need to develop alternate sources of propulsion.
“So, are electrically driven vehicles the answer for the mid- and long-term? Yes, for sure. But we need something else to significantly reduce our reliance on petroleum in the interim.”
This story is taking on a life of its own, and I’m beginning to wonder if I’m the only person left on this planet with any reading skills whatsoever.
Wagoner never said he thinks oil has peaked. Read the quotes cited in the above text. He said demand is outpacing supply, not that supply has peaked. How much simpler than that can it be? Yet for some reason people are jumping on this mythical “GM has called the peak” bandwagon.
I’ll try to type this very slowly, for the benefit of those who are a little behind the curve.
“Peak oil” means we’ve reached the all-time peak in the rate of worldwide oil production.
Supply not meeting demand means just that–that supply is less than demand. This means higher prices (possibly much higher), and very likely more volatile prices, given the geopolitical, weather, and other factors that come into play. And that, in turn, means that car companies have an enormous incentive to produce vehicles that use less oil per mile traveled. Taken to the logical conclusion, that means transitioning away from oil completely, as in the move to electrify transportation.
It really is this simple: You can have a significant, ongoing supply/demand imbalance without a peak and decline in supply, just as you can have a peak and decline in supply without causing a significant supply/demand imbalance.
I’ve mentioned before this “creeping reality” in public pronouncements about peak oil. For some time we’ve seen oil company execs and others describing the textbook symptoms of a run-up to the peak while still shunning the concept of a near-term peak. I’ve heard from people who claim to Know Things that the top executives in some large corporations are convinced that oil production will peak in 2011, effectively the date I think is accurate. I would certainly expect and hope that if that’s indeed the case, that the heads of all the major car companies would be among the enlightened. If they’re not, then we’re in some pretty deep trouble, as we need them to build much more fuel efficient vehicles now and help us transition away from oil as quickly as possible.
But did anyone from GM actually say “we’re effectively at peak oil”? No, at least not in anything I’ve seen quoted so far. And until they do, it’s intellectually dishonest (or just plain sloppy) to read an agenda into what they did say.
Pickups Will Duke It Out in 2008:
Pickup buyers will be the winners when the new Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram trucks go on sale this fall, but automakers could wind up the losers if heated competition in the all-important segment forces them to keep prices low.
Automakers are facing the daunting prospect of selling pickups in a slumping market that has been hammered by the slowdown in home construction. U.S. pickup sales fell 6 percent in 2007, compared with a 3 percent drop in vehicle sales industrywide, and analysts aren’t expecting things to improve anytime soon.
“There’s no chance of pickup sales reviving until the economy recovers,” Mike Jackson, chairman and chief executive of auto retailer AutoNation Inc., told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. “I think everyone’s plans for the pickup truck segment will be difficult, new product or not.”
Incentives helped automakers weather the downturn in 2007. Dodge piled more than $6,000 per truck in incentives on its old Ram pickup last year, while Toyota Motor Corp. spent an uncharacteristically high $2,827 per truck on its new Tundra, according to auto research site Edmunds.com.
…
“I think there’s an understanding that the overall economy, the overall environment, is so tough that it’s not all about pricing,” Jackson said. “You can’t solve the size of the segment with price in this environment. So you only want to use incentives to the extent of competing with other choices for the consumers.”Jackson said overall U.S. sales in 2008 will likely be even lower than 2007, when they were at their lowest level since 1998. He’s optimistic that interest rate cuts and possible tax cuts could improve the outlook, but not sooner than 2009.
“I think everybody understands the seriousness of the situation for the American consumer and this economy, but that medicine is going to take time, and I don’t expect it to fully kick in by the second half of ‘08,” he said.
Holy crap–an entire article about the difficulties of selling pickup trucks in the US, without so much as a mention of gasoline prices? The entire problem is the slow economy and the construction downturn?
Really???
This isn’t the first such article I’ve seen related to the Detroit auto show that mysteriously failed to mention the dark shadow of gasoline prices where it would have been appropriate. What is this, the American media’s version of covering the homecoming football game at the local high school?
Escalating ice loss found in Antarctica (emphasis added):
Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.
While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth’s ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years — as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.
…
Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland, where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent’s western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas, is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland’s ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion.
…
In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.…
The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.Thompson, who has studied the Quelccaya glacier in the Peruvian Andes for 30 years, said that for the first half of that period, it retreated on average 20 feet per year. For the past 15 years, he said, it has retreated an average of nearly 200 feet per year.
“The information from Antarctica is consistent with what we are seeing in all other areas with glaciers — a melting or retreat that is occurring faster than predicted,” he said. “Glaciers, and especially the high-elevation tropical glaciers, are a real canary in the coal mine. They’re telling us that major climatic changes are occurring.”
While the phenomenon of ice loss worldwide is well documented, the dynamics in the Antarctic are probably the least understood. Glaciers and ice sheets are sometimes miles deep, and researchers do not know what might be happening at the bottom of the ice — but it clearly is being lost along the peninsula and West Antarctic coast.
Rignot theorizes that the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the cause. Douglas Martinson, a senior research scientist fellow at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has studied the issue and agrees.
Martinson said the current, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore. The result has been an increased erosion of the glaciers and ice sheets.
Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but “that is clearly the most logical answer.”
As I mentioned