THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The BBC’s Andrew Neil (here on the Daily Politics web page) wonders aloud how Met Office chief executive John Hirst can justify his rather large salary (now between £195,000 and £200,000 after a 25% pay increase, according to the Telegraph), given the rather uneven performance of said Met Office in recent months.
Max,
Yes, if you include oil shale, tar sands etc in your figures for oil, then I wouldn’t disagree too much with your figures. However getting oil from oil shale isn’t quite so easy as drilling a hole in the ground and connecting up a pipeline to the refinery.
Its good to see that you are disagreeing with Lindzen, and agreeing with Wiki for once. That’s not a bad formula for getting close to the correct answer.
Whether you are correct, with CO2 levels possibly tripling, or whether Lindzen’s quadrupling is nearer the mark is somewhat hypothetical. Humanity will eventually have get its act together to prevent CO2 levels reaching anywhere near either figure.
There is no dispute, apart from the nutters who would even argue that increased CO2 levels are themselves natural, that it would be possible to double CO2 levels. Is that safe? No it isn’t.
Max 8900
From what I read it is quite hard to estimate the coal reserves, as from what I understand something of the order of 75% to 90% of the Coal that was originally formed may have already been eroded into the oceans and lost, or some could have morphed into another form of hydrocarbon, or there could, as is suspected with oil, be even more coal than we realise under the oceans. Our understanding of Plate Tectonics is in its infancy and our extraction technology has a long way to go before we can say any of our original oil wells are exhausted.
And Peter M. Oil from shale is a proven technology and profitable at $95 a barrel according to a report I have seen. That is today and I’m sure that technology will continue to improve this in real terms year on year.
It is quite obvious to any adult thinking person that we have spent far too much money and put far too much energy into publicity, propaganda and no-hope wacky idea’s for renewable energy system’s in the last 10 years and neglected spending on improving efficiency. As an engineer I estimate we have lost nearly 20 years progress, as we had stagnation before we turned wacky green. A new reality needs to be implemented, but until we have some grown up politicians who are not just interested in the grandiose showboating, we will continue to stagnate.
Pete,
If you really don’t know the amount of undiscovered or unexplored oil deposits, how could you possibly know if the planet has achieved “peak” status?
I submit that you do not know and simply contribute another Alarmist statement to support your anti-industrial worldview.
There are vast amounts of oil/gas deposits in Russia/Siberia and China that are presently being under utilized. Considering the nature of the present Russian and Chinese political systems, I doubt that we’ll ever know the untapped reserves or at least if the numbers are close to accurate. I won’t even get into the undiscovered/unexplored undersea deposits.
Canadian oil production has exploded while just a generation ago Canada was thought to be bereft of oil.
Your “Earth First/Screw Humanity” bias is showing and while I’d love to generate electricity and fuel transportation with beach sand, our present world economy is fueled with oil.
Something else that I’ve brought up before has to do with the widespread use of plastics. It seems that everything contains some plastic nowadays. I’m not familiar with the numbers, but I’d hypothesize that worldwide use of plastics in the last +/- 50 years has increased considerably. The plastic content of the average automobile in 2010 vs 1970 must be enormous. Consider the lowly beverage container that 20 years ago was made from glass, is now made of plastic.
How much oil is diverted from fuel to make plastic worldwide?
PeterM
You opined:
Double CO2 levels from the assumed pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv by year 2100?
Sounds reasonable if the current rate of increase (0.42% per year compounded) continues.
Is that “safe”?
I have not seen any empirical data that tell me it is not safe.
Why should it not be safe, Peter?
The plants (trees, crops, etc.) will love it and animals (including humans) won’t even notice it, except they may get improved crop yields to feed what will probably be a continuingly growing wprld population.
IPCC “Scenario B1” (with its assumed high 2xCO2 temperature impact of 3.2°C) shows CO2 increasing at a rate of 0.48% per year (to around 600 ppmv) and a resulting theoretical increase in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” of 1.8°C above 1980-1999 level.
HadCRUT 1980-1999 average temperature anomaly = 0.163°C
HadCRUT 2000-2008 average temperature anomaly = 0.431°C
Difference: 0.431 – 0.163 = 0.268°C, round up to 0.3°C
So IPCC forecast for year 2100 is 1.8 – 0.3 = 1.5°C warmer than the average of the past nine years.
Doesn’t sound very “unsafe” to me, Peter.
And, besides, it’s not based on any empirical observations but on a computer simulated 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°C, which has been deconstructed fairly effectively by recent physical observations reported by Spencer et al. and Lindzen and Choi, and is probably exaggerated by a factor of 4 to 5.
So it also doesn’t sound very “likely” to me.
If these recent studies are correct (and there is no viable reason to believe that they are not), the earlier IPCC forecast for 2100 can be reduced to a net warming of 0.5 to 0.7°C over the 2001-08 average (similar to the warming seen in the past century).
That’s a real “ho-hum” (and certainly not “unsafe”, even in the eyes of the doomsday nutters”).
Max
Brute,
You are right. It will be easy to see that world oil has peaked a few years after the event. It is not so easy to see it coming in advance. I doubt if the peaking of US oil in the mid 70’s was correctly forecast by other than a very few at the time. I’m sure that they would have been similarly derided as ‘doomsayers’ etc etc.
The Hirsch report has looked at the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report
There findings pretty much bear out the Boy Scout motto of “Be Prepared”. I guess are quite happy to be totally unprepared.
Big Oil Reserves in China and Siberia? Russia has less than Venezuela. China has less even than the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Brute
You asked Peter:
Roughly 80 million barrels per day crude oil are consumed today worldwide.
This equals 80*365/7.3 = 4,000 million tons per year.
Production of gasoline from various crude oils in modern refineries is currently around 43-46% (can be over 50% using cracking processes).
Diesel fuel and light fuel oil represents around 15-18%.
Production of naphtha for petrochemical feedstock from various crude oils represents currently around 5% (200 million tons/year).
In addition, around 4.5% (170 million tons/year) goes to LPG, which is also partly used as a petrochemical feedstock.
100 million tons plastics are produced per year; 80 million tons of this is polyethylene.
So, excluding yield losses, one could say that around 2.5% of crude oil goes into producing plastics.
(These are rough numbers taken from USEIA and API publications and, yes, for Peter’s sake, even Wiki.)
Max
Brute and PeterM
If the optimistic estimates on total crude oil reserves are right (incl. tar sands and oil shale deposits plus oil left in depleted reservoirs that can be recovered by enhanced recovery techniques) there are around 4.4 billion barrels (570 billion tons) left on our planet.
We are currently consuming this at the rate of 80 million barrels/day, so we have enough to last around 150 years at current usage level.
To date (2005 figures) we have consumed a cumulated amount of around 142 billion tons (or around 20% of the total amount that was originally available on our planet).
So we have 80% still to go.
The reserves (even optimistically estimated) are not infinite.
We are also not “about to run out”.
Max
Brute and PeterM
That’s 4.4 trillion barrels (not billion), of course.
Brute and PeterM
This WSJ report (by a senior ENI executive) says we still have 4.5 to 5 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
Max.
Max,
I agree that there will always be some oil available. The question is: at what price? Much of what you are including as ‘known reserves’ is very expensive, both in terms of energy and capital, to extract. Obviously it may just not be worth it unless the oil price is very much higher than it is now.
US oil production peaked in the mid 70’s. What percentage of the total US reserves would you say had been used at the time? I’m just guessing, but if you are including oil shale and other hard to extract reserves that have been discovered in the US , I’d say it could well be even less than than the 20% figure you are now quoting for the world as whole.
So if production peaked in the US with such a small percentage of total reserves used, why should the situation globally be any different?
Peter Geany (8903)
The USEIA put out an estimate of current global coal reserves (840 billion tons), with a rather pessimistic estimate of as yet undiscovered reserves (160 billion tons).
Other estimates agree with the current reserves, but put the as yet undiscovered reserves at 3x the USEIA estimate (or around 480 billion tons).
At current usage rate, this total amount would last over 200 years.
I used the more optimistic estimate for my CO2 calculation for Peter.
A significant amount of this coal is in the USA (and, to a smaller extent, the UK).
I do not believe that significant quantities of submarine coal are included in the estimates. Nor do I know if technology exists to get this out, nor what it would cost to do so.
I agree with you that the much-ballyhooed push for “renewables” has gotten many governments off on a wild goose chase. I am afraid that U.S. President Obama is also on the wrong track (bad advisors compounding an anti-industrial mind-set).
One of his nation’s major problems is the enormous amount of imported petroleum, primarily for motor fuel, coming to a significant extent from an unstable and hostile region. The USA has vast untapped resources of oil and gas in Alaska, in the offshore continental shelf, in oil shale deposits, etc., but rather than giving priority to exploring, developing and exploiting these resources he is off literally battling “windmills”.
You mentioned oil shale. Shell’s “in-situ conversion process” for oil shale looks very promising, with an enormous potential, as this article points out.
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/
As far as the efforts to conserve energy and improve energy efficiency in industry as well as domestic use, I am all for these. They have been very effective in the developed word, as measured by energy consumption per dollar of GDP generated.
But this whole AGW craze has defocused our governments from the real issues to fretting over imaginary problems originating in a virtual, computer-generated “never-never land”, with the ulterior motive of finding a source of hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax revenues to shuffle around.
You wrote:
I agree, but I believe it is the duty of the citizenry to get the elected officials back on the right track, and away from this AGW craze.
I am hopeful that this is beginning to happen now that people are becoming increasingly aware of the weak scientific basis supporting the AGW craze, as polls in many countries are showing.
This awareness has increased as a result of the recent decade of cooling plus the Climategate revelations. The press coverage of the recent Copenhagen fiasco has also helped.
So I am basically optimistic that the AGW bubble is about to burst and we can all go back to addressing more serious and real problems.
Max
PeterM
To your 8911 on peak oil and oil shale.
See the article on Shell’s “in-situ” oil shale process and forecasts, which I cited in my post to Peter Geany.
This points out that 1.5 to 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil are in the U.S. oil shale deposits alone. (I have seen other estimates putting the world total at 2.5 trillion barrels.)
Shell has stated that its process would make this oil recoverable to be competitive with oil at $40 per barrel. (I have seen other estimates, which put this at $60 per barrel.)
The article also points out that the recovered oil is lighter than conventional crude (or tar sands crude).
The “in-situ recovery process” is energy intensive, but Shell tells us it produces 3.5 times the amount of energy it consumes.
It is also capital-intensive, although no estimates are given.
So I’d say it looks like this will not require significantly higher crude oil prices than those of today to be economically viable, and the amount of recoverable oil is staggering.
The problem with most “peak oil” scenarios is that they exclude oil shale, and this is obviously a big mistake.
Like most of these types of forecasts, they get shifted farther into future years, the more new technology and discoveries are included that the earlier forecast did not envision.
Max
Another “Comical Ali” moment for the BBC here:
“David Shukman reports on how one of the longest cold snaps for a generation, fits in with theories of a warming planet and global climate change.”
Unusually mild? Global warming.
Unusually wet? Global warming.
Unusually dry? Global warming.
Very average? Global warming.
Colder than Moscow? Global warming.
Max/Pete,
Believe me Pete, I’d love to have a cheap, abundant, “clean”, reliable energy source.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the eco-zealots don’t embrace nuclear energy……The answer seems to be their complete opposition to anything that would improve the human condition…I’ve observed this “minimalist” attitude for sometime amongst the Greens (minimalist for everyone except themselves).
I’ve also been looking at these numbers lately. The wind farm advocates and Leftist politicians constantly trumpet the “wind generating capacity” of these farms…..the truth is they aren’t what they’re cracked up to be and the reality is that they produce far, far less than advertised. Wind doesn’t appear to be the answer. The table didn’t travel well. Follow the link to view the table.
The capacity factor of wind power
Table 1 shows installed capacity, mean power and capacity factor for wind energy in several countries, and it shows the global average. All the data are from key primary sources.
Table 1. Installed capacity and capacity factor for wind energy
Morocco Amogdoul 60 23 38.1%
U.S. (total) 6740 1941 28.8%
U.K. (off-shore) 304 74 28.7%
U.K. (on-shore) 1651 408 27.2%
Denmark (total) 3128 755 24.1%
Spain (total) 11615 2534 21.8%
Portugal (total) 1022 202 19.8%
Netherlands (total) 1219 236 19.3%
Germany (total) 20622 3482 16.9%
India (total) 4430 704 15.9%
Italy (total) 1718 268 15.6%
Poland (total) 153 22 14.6% France (total) 757 109 14.5%
World (total) 59051 11559 19.6%
Table is sorted by decreasing load factor, with World figures at the bottom;
Data are for 2006 except where noted.
Some Conclusions:
The global average capacity factor for wind farms is just under 20%. Wind farms on the very best sites, such as those in the North African desert, can achieve capacity factors approaching 40%. France has an exceptionally poor wind resource.
The countries with well exploited wind resources, such as Germany and Spain, tend to have lower capacity factors. That’s because the best sites get developed first, and subsequent wind farm development goes onto progressively poorer sites, thus reducing the average capacity factor. The U.S. has a large installed capacity, yet it has a high capacity factor too, indicating that it has used only the very best sites so far, and still has a very large wind resource left to exploit.
The European Wind Energy Association has set a target for European wind energy for 2010 of 180 GW installed capacity and 500 TWh/yr (57.1 GW) output [13], corresponding to a 31.7% capacity factor. This is greater than the capacity factor of Europe’s existing installed capacity, and much greater than the global average. Unless they’ve saved the best sites till later, this seems to be a rather optimistic assumption about the future capacity factor.
The total energy contribution from wind power remains very small. The total global wind power output in 2005 was 11.6 GW [12]. This is only as much as four large coal-fired power stations. For example, the UK’s Drax coal-fired power station delivered 2.9 GW of average power in 2006 [14].
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/the-capacity-factor-of-wind-power/
Brute,
Confessions of a Greenie:
About ten years ago, I installed a solar (absorbent) hot water system on my roof to replace my antiquated grid sourced electrically heated system. It cost me (back then) about an extra Oz$ 2000, over conventional gas or mains electric systems, but I was advised it would last for ever because the essential parts were in stainless steel etc. Then about 2 years later, I received mail advice from the suppliers that I could protect my investment by having annual servicing at about Oz$200+/year! ….. No mention of this previously!
I decided not to spend the extra cash annually, because upon reflection, although minor, it was one of the silliest con-investments that I’ve made*. What is more, I’m aware of several conventional much cheaper systems, owned by others, both mains electrical and gas that have lived around 15 years, without such formidable maintenance costs.
Then there is a problem with blow-off of up to 200 litres of scalding hot water on hot sunny days, without heavy domestic usage of hot water during the day. Yes, 200 litres…. I bought an olive barrel holding 220 litres to save it for the garden, and it almost fills in one hot sunny day, but not if hot and overcast.
* Apart from in an Jojoba oil plantation, later bankrupt…. Oz$6000, as recommended by the respected Sir Rupert Hamer, and pressured by my wife.
Brute and Bob_FJ
As you have both pointed out, wind or solar power are not the answers to solving the world’s need for increased energy.
Nuclear power could be, but environmentalists of the past have frightened the public in many countries (except France) to fear this solution.
A new generation of so-called environmentalists has tried to frighten the public to be afraid of fossil fuel generated power due to “anthropogenic global warming”.
This fear mongering campaign has been very effective so far in many industrially developed countries, but it has begun to run out of steam, as the public sees that it is no longer warming, that the predicted threat is based on faulty pseudoscience and as other more pressing issues have taken higher priority.
Large, rapidly developing nations, like China, Brazil and India, have never really been sold on this potential threat, as they are more interested in improving the lot of their populations than in fighting this imaginary “rich man’s” problem.
Alex Cull has pointed out the more absurd “it may be colder than it has been for thirty years here, but somewhere on the globe (central Pacific Ocean) it’s much warmer than ever” ruse.
This is not working.
People all over the world are seeing that global warming has stopped despite all-time record increases in CO2.
So let’s tell our politicians that we want to go back to good old reliable, high-efficiency coal-fired power plants, making sure we clean up the flue gases, so that only harmless CO2 is emitted and there is no real pollution, or install clean gas-fired plants, where natural gas is abundant.
At the same time let’s tell them to ignore all the global warming hoopla and send all the taxpayer funded climatologists and computer jockeys back to doing something useful for society.
Max
Brute
To be fair to Peter he seems to be an advocate of nuclear power, however very many of those on the ‘other’ side are not so realistic and want neither fossil fuel OR nuclear. They seem to believe that renewables are the answer to everything when unfortunately they are a side show at present for most countries.
I have been interested in renewables for years but the reality is that they will provide a tiny % of our power for the forseeable future. The Uk will announce today grand plans for massive arrays of offshore wind power.
I tend to approve of these as they don’t have the same problems as on shore ones.
However any significant power input from them is still many years away and doesn’t get away from the problem that even at sea the wind can fail-as it has done over the last few weeks of arctic weather here.
This is now officially the longest cold spell since 1962/3. That year was the third coldest winter in the entire 350 year CET record.
Personally I would love to install renewables on my house but they are not practical in terms of efficiency or cost.
In my view Green peace or Friends of the Earth should offer low cost domestic systems-far more practical than their attempts to shut down our coal fired power stations. I don’t know what on earth they think we would do for energy without them.
Tonyb
Brute and Peter M
Link to WSJ report I cited on oil reserves
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574470700973579402.html
Sorry it did not go through last time.
Brute
Fairly interesting site for UK power generation figures, including wind.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Totally OT (TonyN, sorry feel free to snip if you like), but entertaining.
What’s your internet poster type?
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm
It’s amusing to read through the profiles and start thinking about a few of the people who make posts (especially on the guardian site).
Tonyb,
Yes…..about the only sensible thing that Pete has advocated on this thread [insert smiley face].
I’d say that from an Alarmist point of view, nuclear power is the “greenest”, most reliable, power source available. The generation power per square foot of (as opposed to having acres and acres of windmills and/or solar panels), would be desirable…………better to have a 100 acre eyesore than 100,000 acres of ugly windmills and solar panels. An energy source the size of a thimble provides electrical power for millions of people. I wrote sometime ago that +/- 10 very large nuclear plants could generate power for the entire country (America). Hell, if the goofy Frenchmen can do it, then anyone can.
BobFJ,
No need to be embarrassed………I’ve researched and fooled around with “alternative” power sources for years……primarily due to my anger with public utility rates and my self sufficient attitude (as well as personal interests). After crunching the numbers, I discovered that the electric/gas rates that I pay are a pretty good deal. Also, in America we can purchase power from various providers around the country……I price rates and switch providers occasionally.
I priced solar as an alternative once……I wanted to completely remove myself from the grid. I calculated that I would have to erect solar panels on every square inch of my property and, in addition, purchase my neighbors property and cover it with solar panels also. The return on investment was 72 years.
I’ve fooled around (as a hobby) with solar collectors pushing a Sterling Engine………a Rube Goldberg setup………not very practical.
I have a glut of timber on my property and have been utilizing the Brute Woodstove® as a supplement………it’s attractive to have a glowing fire on cold winter evenings; however, factoring (my) labor costs, fuel (for the Brute truck), purchase of a gasoline log splitter, chain saw, hauling the stuff as well as the mess inside the house…………I’m not certain how “efficient” or cost effective it is. Still, symbolically, I sort of feel as if I’m “sticking it” to the utilities. I’ve looked into purchasing an outdoor hot water boiler piping the heated water through a series of water coils to transfer heat; but, again, the return on investment was poor and utilizing the public electrical/gas service was a better deal.
All of the “alternative” energy sources are interesting playthings……but practically, they leave a lot to be desired. The convenience of flipping the switch to “heat” is a far better alternative than stoking an outdoor water heater in subzero temperatures and waist deep snow.
I built my own home, (something our summer visitors from Britain were shocked over). I installed highly efficient doors and windows, above standard insulation and caulked every lumber gap I could find. I installed a high efficiency condensing gas furnace and utilized induced draft fans for summer cooling. I extended the eaves in order to provide shading and built in area utilizing natural shading (large trees) to block sunlight. Window curtains/blinds help in summer………9’ ceilings and transoms. I’ve been considering a cistern to work in conjunction with our well………but again, the up front costs are high.
Hi Brute
By a huge coincidence ten minutes after sending you my last email on domestic renewables, a solar panel co phoned and I agreed to meet their ‘adviser’.
They phoned back to ensure both myself AND my wife were present during the ‘presentation’ called-obviously because they hoped to make a sale at the time.
I cancelled, as I like to think about things and won’t buy on the spot. However it illustrates that solar is going exactly the same way as the double glazing industry whereby there is always a commission motivated salesperson involved and an expensive tele marketing operation to generate leads.
This all greatly increases the price to an extent the end product is totally uneconomic and has to be sold on other benefits (in this case carbon reduction!)
I would guess I would be looking at around £8-10000 for my 1100sq ft detached house and the amount of power would be very limited.
As a matter of interest, has anyone outside the UK got any recent prices on domestic solar/wind/heat pumps as I would be interested in knowing the equivalent cost in other countries.
The latest govt pie in the sky plan for off shore wind power came out today. I guess TonyN will be glad if the focus switches to the coast as he hates on shore wind power (in beautiful places) as much as I do.
I’m not intersted in the carbon reduction element that is driving the govt, but the net result is their obsession with renewables is going to leave us with a severe energy gap as they won’t build any grown up power stations.
Peter Taylor of course was very much against nuclear for safety reasons but in the absence of coal/gas it is difficult to see where we go next.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
One thing I forgot to mention is that public utilities here will provide “rebates” (one time cash payments) to “offset” the cost of solar/wind projects. I’ve made use of these “rebates” in funding projects for my clients. Something to consider………..
If you do meet with the guy, tell us what becomes of it……I’d be interested in hearing what he has to say.
Brute and TonyB
I’m currently visiting California, where home solar systems are becoming increasingly popular.
A friend here recently installed a system for his 2200 sf semi-detached house here. The system cost around $30,000 to install, but he only had to invest around $10,000 himself.
The State of California picked up almost half of the cost and he received Federal tax breaks for the rest. The local power company is forced by law to take back excess power into the grid at the same price they charge for power, and my friend says his investment will be paid for in 5 years.
So you see that without the state and federal subsidy plus the fact that the power company is forced to take back excess power at full price, it would not be a good deal even in California, where there are a lot of sunshine hours (average 75% of the daytime hours).
Don’t know how the subsidies stack up in England. Are the investment costs subsidized at all? Is the power company obliged to take back excess power at the same price? How many hours of sunshine per year do you get there on average? The attached animated map shows this, and it looks like you are well below California.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/weather/139872-hours-sunshine-animated-map-world.html
In Switzerland there are subsidies (not as high as California) and a lot less sunshine (maybe just a bit better than in England), so the economics are not as good. There are cheaper systems that just provide hot water for heating that make sense in the mountains, where it is colder and there is usually a lot of winter sun.
Brute, how much cheaper do solar systems need to get for solar power to be competitive without all the subsidies?
Max