I keep pushing the issue of a peak oil risk analyis. Richard Heinberg looks over the current state of affairs regarding Peak Oil and offers the following, which should make the need for a risk analysis crystal clear:
The global transport system is almost entirely dependent on oil—not just private passenger automobiles, but trucks, ships, diesel locomotives, and the entire passenger and freight airline industry. High fuel prices will thus impact entire economies as travel becomes more expensive and manufacturers and retailers are forced to absorb higher transport costs.
Conventional industrial agriculture is also overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels. Artificial ammonia-based nitrogenous fertilizers use natural gas as a raw material; modern farm machinery runs on petroleum products; and oil provides the feedstock for making cheap pesticides. According to one study, approximately ten calories of fossil fuel energy are needed to produce each calorie of food energy in modern industrial agriculture.17 With the global proliferation of the industrial-chemical agriculture system, the products of that system are now also traded globally, enabling regions to host human populations larger than local resources alone could support. Those systems of global distribution and trade also rely on oil. Within the US, the mean distance for food transport is now estimated at 1,546 miles.18 High fuel prices and fuel shortages will therefore translate to higher food prices and could even cause food shortages.
A small but crucial portion of oil consumed globally goes into the making of plastics and chemicals. Some of the more common petrochemical building blocks of our industrial world are ethylene, propylene, and butadiene. Further processing of just these three chemicals produces products as common, diverse, and important as disinfectants, solvents, antifreezes, coolants, lubricants, heat transfer fluids, and of course plastics, which are used in everything from building construction materials to packaging, clothing, and toys. Future oil supply problems will affect the entire chain of industrial products that incorporate petrochemicals.
You don't need a degree to "get" it. This shouldn't be over anyone's head to comprehend, not the least being our fearless Alderman. Heinberg also tells us what is going on now to address Peak Oil, and it isn't going to be enough:
In 1998, policy makers had virtually no awareness of Peak Oil as an issue. Now there are Peak Oil groups within the US Congress and the British Parliament, and individual members of government in many other countries are keenly aware of the situation. Government reports have been issued in several nations.19 Sweden has made a national commitment to drastically reduce its petroleum dependence by 2020.20 Cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Oakland, California have undertaken assessments of petroleum supply vulnerabilities and begun efforts to reduce their exposure.21 A few Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have been formed for the purpose of alerting government at all levels to the problem and helping develop sensible policy responses—notably, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), and Post Carbon Institute.22 On a smaller scale, grass-roots efforts in several countries (especially the US, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain) have resulted in the creation of “Relocalization Networks” and “Transition Towns” wherein ordinary citizens participate in the development of local strategies to deal with the likely consequences of Peak Oil.23
Think Globally, Act Locally is at work in those efforts, but they lack the scale needed to deal with Peak Oil on a national scale. It's better than nothing and those communities will be better off when it hits the fan. Will Chicago ever join them?
11 comments:
Thank you for attempting to educate the public of the North Coast on the ramifications of peak oil.
I hope that it is soaking in, a little, enough that when we really begin to feel the squeeze, that people in this little corner of the world won't be too surprized and will be able to take rational steps to meet the situation.
However, for the present, most people in this area seem blind to the situation, and would vehemently resist any conservation/ austerity measures on the part of the city authorities, or even revamping the city's spending priorities and planning so that we can get the advantage of our uniquely favorable location and configuration to densify our neighborhoods around retail/transit hubs, especially in outer neighbhorhoods that once had these and have since gone to sprawl and lost their retail to suburban shopping centers.
Therefore, there is little hope that our city leaders will get their heads out of the sand and really consider what it would mean for this city to be deprived of the energy imputs necessary to keep electrical power on continuously, power and fund water reclamation and sewage, and make urgent repairs to critical infrastructure, such as subway tunnels, briges, flood walls, sewers and water mains.
If we can't get our city and the state to adequately fund CTA and revamp its management, what hope is there that this city will adequately prepare itself for gasoline at $8 a gallon or more, rolling brownouts, and critical shortages of food and other essentials?
If we can't get our priorities straight enough to divert money from monument building to safety-related repairs and replacements of essential infrastructure, what will we do when money and fuel are really short and we are experiencing critical failures of our streets, sewers, and water delivery?
Our "green" mayor is no hope at all. Daley thinks he's established his "green" credentials with a few green roofs and lots of symbolism.
And don't hope for anything from the general population. Read the local blogs, and you can judge for yourself about how much consciousness of the situation and how much civic spirit there is among the "progressive" and relatively eco-conscious population of Rogers Park. You can imagine how receptive the car-dependent denizens of the outer nabes will be to a call for austerity and conservation.
Are there different groups of peak oilers? Some seem to be promting coal and nukes while others renwables? Or perhaps different groups prescribe different courses in response to peak oil concerns? I talked to a fellow who seems hostile to peak oil folks. He said they are paid by the coal/nuke alliance.
@ Paradise:
1 - Peak Oilers are not paid by the coal or nuclear industries. Over at The Oil Drum you will find that most of the folks with anything useful to say are employed by the oil industry in one capacity or another. Robert Rapier for example, is employed by an oil company. Jeffrey Brown (westexas) is an independent geologist who works on oil projects. Khebab on the other hand is a computer researcher with a Ph.D in Remote Sensing (don't ask I haven't a clue). He is an outstanding analyst and very skilled at using and interpreting the charts used to depict current and future production. From what he has written I would think he has an extensive background in statistical analysis. There are many folks at TOD with extensive oil, geological, or analytical backgrounds who are working to decipher oil data and assess the implications for the future.
The bottom line is that this bunch is not some stealth squad looking to move everyone over to one alternative or another. Which takes me to your first question.
2 - Peak Oilers span the spectrum from "doomers" who expect that The World As We Know It (TWAWKI) will totally collapse When The Shit Hits The Fan (WTSHTF), to cornucopians who expect a technological miracle to solve the problem and we can continue Happy Motoring for the foreseeable future so why bother to plan for anything else. In between are the rest of us who are preparing for an energy constrained world, specifically where transportation fuel is concerned. 70% of the oil and related products that we consume in this country is used for transportation fuel. Coal and nuclear have no place in transportation, unless they are used to generate electricity, and the rail system and bus system are fully electrified. Ethanol and other biofuels will play a role, however the impact they will have is not going to be huge. Most folks recognize that some combination of alternative fuels will be needed, along with some level of oil conservation if we are to have enough oil to continue manufacturing the goods that oil products make possible. Synthetic fabric, plastic, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers just to name a few.
Tell that guy to spend some time at TOD before he jumps to any more conclusions.
They make liquid coal to run cars and other vehicles. They're already looking to do it in Kentucky and Illinois. People are fighting about which is better, bio fuels or liquid coal. Liquid coal people say there's plenty of coal and not enough land for bio fuel and that the new manufacturing processes trap CO2 so its less polluting. Environmentalists say its dirtier than oil refinement.
They're also talking about using nuclear reactors to extract hydrogen for fuel cells. Same arguments, no CO2 from nukes or hydrogen. But again nukes are still pretty dirty.
It's exasperaing. I could go on all day about solar and wind. I've heard every argument about why not. The issue isn't what's cheaper or more viable so much anymore, but how the investing in future technology is manifest. Huge investors finance the coal nuke approach, it costs individuals and municipalities nothing up front. But they continue to pay pay pay for it all along. Establishing decentralized renewables like solar and wind needs new opportunities for financing it up front, but it pays itself back...and it's the only thing that has the potential for zero pollution, plus more and better jobs.
Anyway, what do you think of this coal and nuke stuff?
South Africa has a coal-to-liquids initiative in place, however the issue of carbon sequestration has not been fully dealt with. Consequently, I am not entirely convinced we really understand how to sequester the CO2 and do it in a cost effective way. From what I have read the jury is still out on just how much coal is really available, although there is a general consensus that what coal is left dirtier than the coal we previously burned. Same problem as with oil, you have coal that burns relatively 'clean' compared to other types of coal. We have pretty much exhausted the 'cleaner' coal.
Regarding nuclear - there are 2 sticking points with nuclear; 1) availability of uranium and 2) waste disposal. We are still building fission reactors and until we get to fusion we are going to continue to have issues about waste disposal. Worse, we will still have issues about disposal of reactor cores and their assorted piece parts. I saw an article about nuclear that makes me think we are closer to where we need to be on those counts. I think nuclear's big role is going to be in electricity generation. I keep seeing claims about hydrogen but the guys at TOD have dissected them all and found the claims to be wanting. We are decades from a hydrogen based economy.
So, expect to see coal for electricity generation. I think it is a waste of money to convert it to a liquid transportation fuel rather than use it to keep the lights on. Same for nuclear - we'll need it for electricity. We need to come up with a rational method for permits and approvals so it doesn't take a decade to build a plant. By the way, a significant portion of France's electricity comes from nuclear plants. I believe it is well over 40%, I'd have to check.
Chicago is 80% nuclear and the rest coal. We have two coal plants in Chicago. We used to have some of the cheapest electricity around until they started trading it. I don't doubt that more is on the way.
What do you think of solar and wind?
Chicago is 80% nuclear, with 2 coal plants in the city? I'll have to look into that.
Solar, wind, and waves have their role too. It depends on where you live and the conditions. What works for Phoenix may not work for Chicago. I noticed that wave turbines are getting a lot of attention in Britain, with the decline of their oil industry.
Everything needs to be examined and decisions made on the most effective options for a given location.
Oh, they changed it, now it's 83% nuclear and the rest is mostly "unknown resources" It used to be stated as coal. It's in your electric bill in a little pamphlet called Environmental Disclosure Information. The two coal plants in the city are the Fisk and the Crawford.
Obviously I need to be reading the inserts. Thanks
I love those little disclosure statements, and have been reading them for years. Chicago has a bunch of local nuke plants, unfortunately they are all quite old and very expensive to operate. We occasionally go to as little as 50% nuke power but sometimes as much as 90%. The real problem is that ComEd divested themselves of their nuke generation. This means they no longer have a vested interest in actually transporting nuke power, so I expect to see that percentage go down in the future.
Oops, looks like the company they sold off at least Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden and Lasalle to (Zion's been shut down for a while) is Excelon which is their parent company. So I guess the vested interest is still there for now. Also Pioneer Press has a small note on supposedly 2% green power in the near future. I'll believe that when I see it.
Post a Comment