The Coming Climate Change

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis ..,,,,What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea.... Mariss

I have never heard of this theory. I do know a little bit about chemistry, like enough to have earned a doctorate degree, and I think the idea that complex hydrocarbons can be synthesized from water and carbon is a little bit out to lunch.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I'm referring to T. Gold's theory that terrestrial petroleum may be abiogenic. Gold argued:

1. The geographical distribution of oil seems derived from features much larger in scale than individual sedimentary features.

2. The quantities of oil and gas available are hundreds of times those estimated on the basis of biological origins.

3. The so-called "molecular fossils" found in oil and claimed as proof of a biogenic origin are simply biological contaminants, particularly bacteria that feed upon the petroleum.

4. Petroleum is largely saturated with hydrogen, whereas buried biological matter should exhibit a deficiency of hydrogen.

5. Oil and gas are often rich in helium, an inert gas which biological processes cannot concentrate.

6. The great oil reservoirs of the Middle East are in diverse geological provinces. There is no unifying feature for the region as a whole and, especially, no sediments rich in biological debris that could have produced these immense concentrations of oil and gas.

Anyway, the Siljan Ring in Sweden, an ancient 70km diameter meteor impact was drilled in the late '80s to a depth of 10km. The idea was the impact had fractured the overlying rock to a depth exceeding 40km and this fracturing would allow the postulated abiotic hydrocarbons to seep upwards to a recoverable depth. The last I heard was the results were inconclusive. Because the theory seems dormant today, I assume it may be either unverifiable or has been debunked. Here's a link which gives a synopsis of the theory:

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

Mariss

[Geof]

I read the link and I still think it is an out to lunch idea. I put it in the same category as the 200 mpg carburetters that were "supressed" by the oil companies, etc. Because it is impossible to disprove it, it must have some merit.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I'm glad you took the time look it over and render an opinion based on your expertize. I don't have the necessary background to make an informed appraisal. I pretty much have reached the same conclusion as you albeit for different reasons. If the idea had merit then it would have been pursued and any tangible results would have resulted in publicity. There are no suppressed ideas; a good idea always sees the light of day.

I don't subscribe to the "If you can't disprove it, it must have merit" concept either.

Mariss

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Geof Yes, I do know what coal is. No Green technology is cheaper and no Green technology exists in the same reserves. What I am getting at is the the entire world economy, and indeed the very survival of billions of people, is crucially dependent on abundant cheap energy; fossil fuels. Coal and oil provide about equal amounts of energy and combined they provide many times the energy currently obtained from Green sources even when you include Hydro and Nuclear as being Green. To replace only half of the energy currently obtained from coal it would be necessary to at least double both the number of current Hydro installations and the number of current Nuclear installation. Designing and building both Hydro dams and Nuclear facilities takes multpile decades even if sufficient locations are found to place them. It is not going to happen quickly enough to obtain the pontificated CO2 emission reductions said to be essential within 20 or 50 years to avoid catastrophe. Never mind that it is not going to happen; if by some strange fluke the needed dams and reactors could be built they would result in an enormous surge in CO2 emission due to their construction. The production of cement for concret generates huge amounts of CO2, you can probably Google and find out the number; dams and reactor buildings use enormous amounts of concrete. The bottom line is that alternate sources of CO2 free energy are simply not available. We cannot wave a magic wand, stop using fossil fuels and blythely continue with our energy intensive society. And we cannot suddenly cut energy use in half because that will create even greater social catastrophe in the form of mass starvation. Cheap abundant energy is essential for cheap abundant food promptly distributed from its source to where it is needed. There is no avoiding continued, and increased CO2 emissions for a long time into the future. If this is going to cause worldwide climate and weather upheavals (most of which I think are nonsensical predictions) we are going to have to adapt to them. It could be easier than adapting to having a good portion of the world's population starve to death over a few years.

Hi Geof,
I did a Google search as you suggested and found it fascinating. By some accounts concrete production contributes as much as 10% to C02 emissions. Who would've thought that? It is possible, however to make concrete that is less polluting.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscent.../concrete.html
“Concrete usage around the world is increasing, and for most applications such as roads and buildings there are no viable alternatives on the horizon,” said Thomas. “However, it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future."

As to your contention that it'll take multiple decades to put the green infrastructure in place, that's been the case in the past. With a political commitment I think the time line could be reduced. It will take an attitude change of the people to recognize that there is a problem before our government will get behind that though. Fortunately we are beginning to see peoples' attitudes change in that regard.
Your statement that the entire worlds economy and the lives of billions of people depends on abundant cheap energy is probably correct as well. But that is changing. Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive and less abundant. I think that the prudent course is to mandate greener sources of energy through legislative initiatives. Of course more research is needed. This is the kind of big, expensive research that only government can afford to implement. My thinking is the sooner the better. We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.
I think we should look to Europe for a role model. Through the use of rather large taxes on fuel they encourage conservation. That could be done here in small increments. Let's say a 10 cent increase per year in fuel taxes. That wouldn't hurt too badly, the petroleum market is doing more than that to us already. The money could fund research on alternative energy sources.
As to your contention that alternate sources of CO2 free energy aren't available, think conservation. Rail as opposed to tractor trailers would save a great deal of oil usage and free up our highways as well. 40 MPG cars replacing 20 MPG vehicles would save also. This is all doable. It just takes a commitment on the part of the public to recognize that there is a problem.
Donna

[xyzdonna]

Originally Posted by Mariss Freimanis Kind of disappointed with post #190. An ill-constructed question followed by a facile and pedestrian answer to a self-serving setup question, all in the same post no less. Something dumb from someone I expected better of. In a word, sophomoric. What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea. Does anyone know what eventually came of it? Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Facile, pedestrian and sophomoric all in one post? I knew I was good but I didn't think I was that good! Surly you'll allow me a little hyperbole in addressing a problem of the magnitude we're discussing. I was just saying that there are alternatives out there that would be competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Look at what we have now, over $90 a barrel. We have not had the political leadership to move us in the direction we need to go. My point is that reducing oil usage is paramount. It's also doable. The government through fuel taxes, could stabilize the price of gasoline at a level high enough to encourage the development of alternative sources. With gas at bargain basement prices, where's the incentive to save?
Donna

[Geof]

Donna you are certainly a Pollyanna

Okay we all trade in our 20 mpg vehicles for 40 mpg and feel very virtuous.

But now we have created a huge CO2 pulse making those new vehicles so it is going to take more time before emission levels start declining.

All truck traffic is going to be transferred from highways to rail.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future.

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I could continue but I need my morning coffee.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Originally Posted by xyzdonna Why continue to pour money into carbon energy when the other stuff is safer, cheaper and easier. Is it laziness, we just don't want to learn how to do the new stuff, the old ways are more comfortable?

Why then isn't "easier" chosen if "laziness" is the reason? Sillier yet is comfortable "old ways" and learning "new stuff". Do brief review of the last 100 years.

Why not ask the question again but give it some thought before offering a reason. Maybe you'll find a problem with the question, perhaps the assumption it's "safer, cheaper and easier".

Non-renewable energy is fossil fuel and nuclear. Renewable energy is solar-cells, solar concentrators, biomass, ethanol, hydroelectric, windmills, wood-burning stoves, etc. All renewable energy is solar energy and that is a major problem. In fact it's a show-stopper for a technological civilization.

Solar energy is feeble. It is at best (noon, clear day, on the equator) 1kW per square meter. 10% of that is recoverable as usable energy so make it 100W per square meter.

Let's use it in a car. A car needs 75kW minimum at 100 kM/hr. To get that, 750 square meters of collector area is required. The collector diameter is 31 meters (about 100 feet) sitting atop your vehicle. OK, not practical.

Let's grow corn, convert it to ethanol and put it in the car. You drive 15,000 km a year, your car gets 10 km/l so you need 1,500 liters of ethanol a year. A square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year. You need 5,000 square meters of farmland for your personal transportation needs.

That's 10,000 miles a year, 25 MPG, 400 gallons annually, 300 gallons ethanol per acre or 1.3 acres of corn. That's a lot of corn.

Solar energy conversion efficiency for ethanol is a not so hot 0.1%. A square meter receives 8 X 10^9 Joules of solar energy a year. A square meter produces 0.3 liters of ethanol a year whose energy content is 7 X 10^6 Joules.

The bigger picture. US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year. Solar energy is 8 X 10^9 J / m^2 / yr. Assuming a very optimistic 5% conversion efficiency, every man, woman and child would need over 1000 square meters of solar "collector area". That's over a 1/4 acre per person of very expensive technology. Get it all from low-tech corn? Now you need 50 times more land; 50,000 m^2 or 12.5 acres per person.

Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence.

I did the math myself. I hope I didn't slip a decimal point somewhere.

Mariss

[Geof]

And a point Mariss did not include in the Ethanol example is that more energy is consumed in the growth of the corn and all the subsequent processing steps than is produced in the resulting Ethanol. This has been and still is denied by the Ethanol advocates with the silliest argument I have seen so far being the statement that it is not correct to include the energy utilized to make pesticides and fertilizer used on the corn crop as an input energy.

And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence. really is the bottom line. It is a long way off even at current levels of fossil fuel consumption because there are still immense quantities of coal, and, if a successful way of tapping them is developed, even vaster deposits of methane hydrates.

And I can hear you saying that these all release CO2 which is correct. If we want to continue with our energy profligate lifestyle there is no alternative. If all the predictions from the IPCC are correct our descendants have some serious problems to solve. I think that all the stuff about mass extinctions and greater weather extremes is nonsense. As I have mentioned previously there is no evidence that this has happened with earlier warm spells. And as Lomborg points out some of the changes such as agriculture being enhanced in northern regions actually are positive.

The really big problem certainly will be sea level rising; this is likely but may be overstated. The Antarctic continent is still going to remain frozen and already there are indications that some regions are experiencing increased precipitation which is going to increase the amount of water tied up in that ice mass. In addition while permanent sea ice cover in the Arctic will diminish it is possible that precipitation in the form of snow could be greatly increased on the land area surrounding the Arctic Ocean. This is something that does not seem to have been considered but fifty years ago the possibility of greatly increased snow fall arising from increased open Arctic waters was postulated. The context was not global warming but a proposal by the Soviets to increase the shipping season for their Arctic ports by spreading coal dust on the ice. The theory was that the black would absorb solar radiation better leading to an earlier and more extensive summer melt. This would lead to a delayed freeze up in the Fall giving the extended port accessibility. The plan was not put into practice because of the fear that the extra open water in late Fall and early Winter would create a moisture source for enhanced snow fall. The concern was not and is not without merit; the prevailing winds blow from the north, i.e. from the water, and greatly enhanced snow fall down wind of open water is well know. This is the 'lake effect' experienced down wind of the Great Lakes. It is too early to know for sure whether this has already started but definitely the freeze up in the Canadian Arctic is occurring later in the season; we know that from the hungry Polar Bears. I have seen reports that some areas in the north have had greater than average snowfalls for several years now but it is impossible to say whether this is just a weather cycle with a period of a decade or so or whether it is a permanent change; only time will tell. However, if this increased precipitation does occur it is possible that it could enhance the mass of the permanent land based snow and ice cover in the north including the Greenland Icecap. Combined with increased accummulation in the Antarctic the future may hold lower sea levels not higher.

[DR-Motion]

Nice post Mariss, My initial impression is that this type of analysis points at the most fundamental flaw in the discussion of GW or CC. While our modern culture has certainly increased our literacy, sadly our numeracy is pretty dismal.

</flame bait on> Our most vocal Greenies, spouting their rhetoric, inevitably are lacking in fundamental math skills. This is why they are so easily convinced of the security proffered by biofuels , solar power and (IMNSHO the biggest scam of all) hydrogen . </flame bait off>

As a reality check on your, "US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year" I checked my electric utility bill and found my yearly consumption to be about 15,000 kWh per year for a family of 6. My gasoline consumption for 25,000 kM per year at 10 kM per litre is about 2500 litres . So while not accounting for my natural gas consumption ( 'cause I don't know how to relate it to the correct units) and not including all the energy used to fuel my "consumer" goods, I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle.

Geof, ... "some regions are experiencing increased precipitation" ... yeah it was all in my driveway this morning... 6 inches of heavy wet snow with a three foot drift blocking the entrance to my shop. And inevitably as soon as I finished shoveling the driveway... the snowplow came by and buried me in again.LOL

You are absolutely correct in your consideration of energy consumption required in the growing or manufacturing of alternate energy sources, as any accountant will tell you. The same energy cost must be applied to manufacturing "greenie" technology such as modern batteries, fuel cells and solar panels; the amortisation of these costs reveals a large energy footprint.

" And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak?
Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by DR-Motion I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle.... " And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak? Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

Regarding your per capita consumption you admit you have not added in the natural gas; actually maybe you could check your gas bills and see if they quote consumption in joules, ours do. This omission accounts for some lower consumption but I think published figures are obtained by dividing total energy consumption by population so they include energy used on your behalf in making the products you buy. They also include energy used making products that may be exported and used by someone else and this makes them unreliable for country to country comparisons. Per capita consumption in Europe is certainly lower than here but if energy intensive products are made here and used there the energy consumption is assigned to Canada when really it should follow the product.

Bleak conclusion??? That is from my perspective and personal history. I grew up on a farm in New Zealand. We did not get electricity wired into our house until I was ten years of age. Life was a long way from being 'a primitive agrarian existence' but when I was old enough my day started by splitting wood for the stove so we could cook breakfast. We also did not have an automobile until I was around twelve and I had to leave at around 6:30am for a 1/2 mile walk to the road and then a 1-1/2 hour bus ride to get to school.

And actually the historical record shows that the primitive agrarian existence was bleak with chronic malnutrition, people were smaller then, repetitive strain injuries from constant heavy toil and a short life span.

[Mariss Freimanis]

1) I didn't include the energy necessary to produce ethanol only because the numbers are bad enough even were it 100% efficient. The second reason was to deflect any criticism the calculated costs are inaccurate or inflated.

2) Numerous published estimates of US per capita energy consumption is 8,000 kg of oil per year. A little math yields 4.5 X 10^11 Joules. I assume that number includes the energy required to produce all the goods and services we enjoy.

3) Year-averaged insolation is generally agreed as being 6kW-hrs/m^2/day here in Sunny Southern California where I live. In the US Northwest and the Northeast it is about half that value. A little calculator work gives 8 X 10^9 Joules per year for here.

4) Published data shows an acre of land gives 120 bushels of corn and a bushel gives 2.5 gallons of ethanol. The calculator says that's 7 X 10^7 Joules/m^2/yr.

5) The conclusion is only bleak if human wealth and ingenuity is directed in the wrong direction. Forget about "alternate energy sources", develop nuclear fusion. We are awash in literal oceans of energy; a liter of ocean water contains 2.7 X 10^11 Joules of energy in the form of eminently fusible deuterium. That's equivalent to 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water.

Fossil and nuclear energy is potent only because it is stored energy that can be released quickly and on demand. You cannot flush a toilet a drop at a time. Anyone can check the numbers; I didn't know what they were either. All it took was a calculator, Google and 2 hours out of my fine Sunday morning.

Mariss