jay pettitt on 16/8/2012 at 08:36
Quote Posted by LarryG
Oh boy. More emissions. Yummy. Just what we've been lacking.
Less emissions. Still emissions. But less.
But the critical thing is that it's something that the US can do straight away. Like today. And this is a problem where the clock is ticking.
If you want to do something that's arguably more substantial like push efficiency really hard then that's great - but it's a project that's going to take decades to change behaviours and switch existing physical things to more efficient physical things. As will building nuclear plant or Hydro. You can get going with smaller renewables pretty quickly ~ they're good to do, but installing enough capacity to make a difference is again a giant project that's going to take a while.
All of those things are good to do and great to get started on, but none of them produce emissions cuts right now.
Plus Natural Gas is damn useful in an energy grid anyway because you can turn it up and down quickly. It's about the only generating technology you can do that with. Whatever 21st Century grid you end up with in the future will probably want some gas plant in it to balance supply with load and as backup. And you can add carbon capture later.
Step 1 is getting off coal.
Vivian on 16/8/2012 at 09:46
Quote Posted by CCCToad
They've been saying that for the past few decades.
What, the past few decades that have seen really large increases in oil prices and the coincidental breakout of full scale wars between the western nations and oil-producing countries?
faetal on 16/8/2012 at 10:26
So long as shale etc... still has a better EROI than biofuel, hydrogen, tidal, solar etc.. (it does), then it will be used. The price of everything will go up to accommodate additional costs - they're not just going to stop the machine. Usage may decrease, sure, we still need to look at getting emissions way down first.
The problem with the whole situation is capitalism basically. The market demands that energy be profitable, not low emission. SO a predominantly share indexed energy industry has a legal obligation to its shareholders to exploit whatever is most profitable at any given time. Hands up who thinks that solar, tidal or hyrdogen (which all have their own issues also) are going to be more profitable than exploiting more fossil fuel sources.
jay pettitt on 16/8/2012 at 11:01
Quote Posted by faetal
So long as shale etc... still has a better EROI than biofuel, hydrogen, tidal, solar etc.. (it does), then it will be used. The price of everything will go up to accommodate additional costs - they're not just going to stop the machine. Usage may decrease, sure, we still need to look at getting emissions way down first...
...Hands up who thinks that solar, tidal or hyrdogen (which all have their own issues also) are going to be more profitable than exploiting more fossil fuel sources.
Nobody is saying what the energy return on shale gas currently is, but traditionally fracturing has been seen as the poor mans' supply of oil and gas because the EROI has been dismal.
I'll stick my hand up. The EROI of natural gas is about 6:1and falling with a bunch of increasing additional expenses on top. Shale gas might be not much better than 1.5:1 (but with less additional costs). The EROI of offshore wind is in the region of 30:1
Energy return isn't the only metric though.
If you're barely making a profit per unit, but can shift billions of the things then you'll still make a sizeable return. Net return matters. So Conventional and Shale Gas might yet be economic - but for raw economic gain, the future isn't fossil fuels.
Quote:
The problem with the whole situation is capitalism basically. The market demands that energy be profitable, not low emission.
So stick a price on emissions.
Economic models tell us that emissions are expensive going forward. To the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. And that's if the impacts of climate change are relatively slight. If the market is sending price signals that emissions are cheap because there's a lag between emissions and impacts then you've got a common or garden market failure.
It's not as though we don't know what to do with those.
The price that the US would have to stick on emissions to shift from Coal to Gas, which if the experience of the big EU economies is anything to go by could bag them a ~15% - 20% emissions cut just by using existing infrastructure, is tiny.
faetal on 16/8/2012 at 12:03
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Nobody is saying what the energy return on shale gas currently is, but traditionally fracturing has been seen as the poor mans' supply of oil and gas because the EROI has been dismal.
Then thank goodness burning gas doesn't release greenhouse gases....oh, hang on.
Quote:
I'll stick my hand up. The EROI of natural gas is about 6:1and falling with a bunch of additional expenses on top. Shale gas might be not much better than 1.5:1 (but with less additional costs). The EROI of offshore wind is in the region of 30:1
There is an asymptote of how much wind power can be installed in usable space which falls too short of total energy demand. Wind and solar are good (at current tech levels) supplementary energy sources, but not primary ones. If fracking becomes viable at higher barrel prices, then it will be used.
Quote:
Energy return isn't the only metric though.
If you're barely making a profit per unit, but can shift billions of the things then you'll still make a sizeable return. Net return matters. So Conventional and Shale Gas might yet be economic - but for raw economic gain, the future isn't fossil fuels.
Quite, but it is the foremost metric. If the US is sitting on vast amounts of fossil fuel, it will find a way to use it, if not now with current tech, then later with improved extraction methods. Fracking is crude, but probably not the only way to get it. I know I'm speculating, but I am doing so with knowledge that the current
culture around energy is "get it and burn it if it is profitable" and if this culture remains in place, then any future means of making sequestered fossils profitable *will* be exploited. It is the attitude which needs to change - we can't assume that hard to get fossils will be left alone.
Quote:
So stick a price on emissions.
Great idea - now show me a government which doesn't have its throat clogged with the energy industry's dick.
Quote:
Economic models tell us that emissions are expensive going forward. To the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. And that's if the impacts of climate change are relatively slight. If the market is sending price signals that emissions are cheap because there's a lag between emissions and impacts then you've got a common or garden market failure.
Until businesses are actually facing the reality of paying these costs, they won't care. We all know what happens in crises - the government throws tax payer money at it.
Quote:
The price that the US would have to stick on emissions to shift from Coal to Gas, which if the experience of the big EU economies is anything to go by could bag them a ~15% - 20% emissions cut just by using existing infrastructure, is tiny.
Actually what the US would do with emission charges is buy quota from other nations so it can continue emitting - this is what has happened in the past with carbon trading.
demagogue on 16/8/2012 at 13:20
Uh, if anyone's curious on the treaty law... The Framework Convention & Kyoto Protocol are broadly divided into three big areas, the emission targets (with tradeable credits and a few variations), mitigation (like insulating buildings, emission standards on cars, or controlling deforestation aka REDD), and adaptation (like developing drought resistant crops or building seawalls to control sea inundation).
The historically big problem was the US didn't want to join unless China joined (because China goods would have an unfair competitive advantage), then China complained that emission targets should include historic contribution not current contribution as a condition of it joining, so China shouldn't have to slow its emissions any... But even though the US isn't a member it's an observer and cares a lot about what happens in negotiations.
The overall results have been pretty lukewarm. The Copenhagen Conference in 2009 (setting the next round of emission cuts) that was supposed to make the big splash ended up more of a fizzle, although a few things were done in the nooks and crannies of the negotiations (like recognizing some social protections).
faetal on 16/8/2012 at 13:53
But nothing resembling concerted action...
scumble on 16/8/2012 at 17:46
Monbiot is such a terrible hand-wringer. However I was quite interested in his comments about this peak oil turnaround. A lot of people were fairly certain it had already happened.
By the way, oil prices may have seemed to increase, but the price of oil in terms of gold has stayed fairly constant. The problem is that money is generally worth less because of the huge amount of money created and shoved into the economy. My salary has increased a fair bit in the last four years but in real terms I am earning less than I was in 2008.
So I am not sure myself what is likely to happen, but what I do know is that it is a lot cheaper for me to commute a hundred mile round trip in a car than taking the train...
zombe on 16/8/2012 at 18:23
Just adding a few random thoughts ...
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Hmmm, just a random thought, we are talking about how in a 1000 years or so shit will go down with our current activity but... aren't we supposed to run out of fossil fuels in the next few decades? I mean, isn't the time needed for our "current activity" (whatever that might be) to royally mess up the planet simply way longer than we can feasibly sustain said "current activity?"
Hm, i can not remember any numbers, but global warming lags
WAY behind the equilibrium point ... i (very) vaguely remember that if greenhouse gas emissions would be
zeroed over night (ie, no fossil fuels and no extra positive-feedback sources [melting in permafrost areas / reduced snow-ice coverage] etc
at all) then it would still continue warming for 30 years till it would reach equilibrium (and then start to lag behind in reverse direction).
Also, fossil fuels do not run out any time soon - tech and prices make it feasible to get it from places not found and/or considered before.
LarryG on 16/8/2012 at 18:25
Quote Posted by scumble
... but what I do know is that it is a lot cheaper for me to commute a hundred mile round trip in a car than taking the train...
Yeah. What's up with that? Why are train prices so high in the USA? The infrastructure was paid for years ago. If it is cheaper to transport containers by train than by tractor-trailer semis why isn't it cheaper to transport people? The economies of scale should favor of the train, but there is no place in the US that I know of where self-driving isn't cheaper than the train. In fact, it is often cheaper to fly than take the train. That's nuts!
