Phasing Out Fossil Fuels
Here’s a step in the right direction, I suppose: The G7 has decided to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century. My thoughts:
• Equating natural gas, oil and coal, simply because they are all fossil fuels, shows a very weak understanding of the key issues facing the world energy/environmental crisis.
• 85 years is an eternity in terms of technology and its cost-effectiveness. Given the rate at which the costs of solar and wind are crashing and improvements are being made in those areas, as well as its related subjects: energy storage, electric transportation, other renewables, smart grid, etc., the year 2100 is eons away.
• 85 years is also an eternity in terms of environmental destruction, especially given the expanding population and its demand for skyrocketing per capita demand for energy.
• Most obviously, what about the pollution generated by the 86% of the planet’s population that happens not to live in the G7 countries? To take the most blatant example, we either help China put an axe through its development of coal, or we’re all in for a great deal of suffering.
At least the issue is on the table; let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth.
We had similar thoughts. I’d be much more interested in a stated goal of ending coal use in the G7 by 2040 (which is possible but would be insanely difficult), than I am of a goal of ending all fossil fuel use by 2100…
But I’d be even more interested if they declared they wouldn’t import goods from any country that had greater than “X tons CO2 emissions/person/year” by 2030, and then declared that target would reduce slightly every year.
As I’ve mentioned before… China isn’t as scary as India… China has agreed (how they manage is anyone’s guess) to a peak carbon output by 2030. They’ve increased their renewable generation at a more rapid pace than any other country on the planet over the past 15 years, and several of those years they’ve increased their renewable energy production by more than every other country on the planet combined. They’re in the initial stages of really launching nuclear power, and they’re starting to get wealthy enough that they can afford the luxury of concern about air quality. India may never reach that level of wealth, they have far fewer non-coal resources, and they will max out at a far greater population.
The greater Indian Peninsula (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) represents a far-too-quickly growing population for which there is no current path that will stop their exponential increase in emissions. They are more scary than China.
But they are all scary.
Good point here; thanks for reminding me.
I would say we need China’s help in this far more than they need ours.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh however need all the support they can get to shift to clean energy sources.
AAEC has the core renewable fuels input technology that can help China put an axe through its consumption of coal and oil and natural gas and do likewise for North and South America and India and Indonesia and Europe and ……. well you get the idea. Scalable and replicable and fuel flexible and process flexible technology is what we are endeavoring to offer.
AAEC management believes we will do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power all societies on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also reducing ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting our communities and electric power grids. We are claiming to be the inventor of one of the “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity bound up in. We propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at community, city and county scale as good paying infrastructure producing jobs are needed. Therefore AAEC is seeking support from all that may care to support this project.
AAEC’s product lines can be manufactured in the US and in most any locality on any continent for the local or regional market. This we at AAEC believe will create licensing opportunities and many thousands of good paying long term jobs and these are among the things we are offering to an alternative energy hungry world. For further details please contact:
Les Blevins, President Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see
http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
http://advancedalternativeenergycorp.com
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602
I hope these conversations about ending fossil use include discussions about population. Energy use, is similar to food, it is in part a function of population. Worldwide energy use will increase as the population increases.
Re: “equating fossil fuels” we are being constantly bombarded by advertisements from the natural gas industry (and many governments) that natural gas is a “cleaner” energy source than oil or coal, but that is not true, especially as the industry switches to the use of fracking. When it is burned natural gas produces less CO2 than the other fossil fuels per unit of energy delivered, but the process of collecting the natural gas from shale rock is extremely “dirty”. When the hydraulic fracturing is done only a very small portion of the methane that is released is actually recovered via the well. The balance remains underground, at least on a temporary basis, but a large part of it has been (or will be) freed from its 380 million year imprisonment within the impervious shale. Some of it escapes from the shale layer, some is dissolved or entrained in the millions of gallons of water used for fracking, some is impeded by fissures that are too thin to provide high mobility, and some will be progressively released by bulk diffusion of methane into the huge surface area that fracking provides for its escape. The shale layer itself has been shattered so it is no longer impervious and in general the surrounding rock was porous to begin with (that is why one finds natural gas in the shale) so the process creates a mobile cloud of natural gas that will grow in size and concentration year after year. Clearly some (and more likely most) of that methane will eventually reach the surface.
That cloud is deep in the ground so initially there will be only a few signs of it, such as methane in water wells or unexplained increases in atmospheric methane that seeps up from shale plays that are thousands of square miles in area. The rate of escape will increase over time and the seepage can never be turned off – the ground (and groundwater) will continue to leak methane for centuries to come.
Neither the gas industry nor government agencies have provided good data on the magnitude of this leakage. Their reports on fugitive emissions refer to the losses from the gas pipelines, not this kind of leakage. As the Pope has suggested the choice of what energy sources we use is presently a matter of ethics – is the onus on us as consumers to prove that what the gas industry is doing IS dangerous or is it incumbent on the industry to show conclusively that IS NOT dangerous?
i told you how to give cheap renewable energy to the world and all the clean water the world needs. perhaps you are not what you portray yourself as
We in the West have to provide the current and future technologies in order to help the developing world to ‘leapfrog’ over the industrial revolution and help them to give up their dreams of fossil fuelled car ownership, diesel generators, fossil fuelled energy generation for lighting, heating, clean water and cooling in hospitals, schools and homes, all aiming for a ‘higher standard of living’!
Provision of all of those dreams can be provided ‘fossil free’ today and we have the technology which is improving and falling in costs daily. Sales into these economies will speed the price reductions.
If the IMF is to have a future after the way they are handling the Greek economy, it must be their responsibility to fund this technology adoption in the ‘third world’. The savings that the planet experiences as a result should be sufficient ‘interest’ on these loans that they can be ‘zero interest’ loans. The procurement and distribution of the technology will also be the responsibility of the IMF which must be held accountable!
As the UK eliminates modest subsidies for on-shore wind turbines in favour of fracking, I fear our dreams of a clean and healthy planet are just pipe dreams!
Keep up the struggle.
It’s a joke.
There will NOT be a war like effort to develop and then scale ANY reasonable fossil fuels replacement. Should we not have a suitable replacement by that far off time, they’ll simply shut down the g7 nations, as they are already trying to do by use of many senseless environmental laws (not all enviro laws are bad). When it’s time for a carbon tax, you know who a’ll be paying and you know, they’ll put it all into non actions. They’ll use the carbon tax moneys for lawyers, litigation, approval procedures, and, especially, “law enforcements”. They’ll throw in a few GW of (very expensive) schoolside parking panels, just for good looks, and they’ll continue with the “must not develop terawatts of molten salt nuclear reactor” nonsense. And, they’ll find a way to “make” fusion dangerous (once word is out that we can already harness the power of it).
These are your lawmakers, folks – noth’n but money, money, money – which leads to the path of fossil fueled depletion into an overheated biosphere.
The way out is for a country, perhaps, even an island nation, to mass produce and distribute molten salt reactors – and for them to use their profits fighting the anti molten salt nuclear reactor establishment, to enable global scale up.
Another country might want to develop machine automation to the point where solar and batteries together, are cheaper than molten salt reactors – and coal! They, too will have to use most their profits to fight current establishment ridiculousness – to get the renewable option cheaper than the hot air!
A few facts that are and will force action at a gastes pace every time.
1.- Greater disaster from floating, drawing, fires, hurricanes, will increase dead toll. Specially in the highly populated areas, and low tech societies. Like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. África.
2- Food production will be affected, less food, revolutions, pestes, and massive immigration ( like Africa right now)
3- Permafrost and the biggest mistake by human, CH4 released by fracking, clouds of methane are being measure over Colorado areas right now, they can be track to fracking wells. Rising CH4 will have a huge impact on weather and will be impossible to stop.
4- Carbon tax and other emergency actions will have to be taken by politicians. Probably starting in Paris.
5- Engineers and industries are getting ready to di the transformation and face the must extraordinary challenge human been has had.
6- Population will reduce, emissions will reduce, clean energy and industry will grow clean.
7- Will that be enough to solve the problem?
Er,…those are opinions, not “facts”.
Craig,
You wrote, ” To take the most blatant example, we either help China put an axe through its development of coal, or we’re all in for a great deal of suffering.”
I entirely agree. However, the U.S., in addition to other countries, IS helping China as the following articles, which I found with a google search on “china thorium” indicate:
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/
However, the urgency is such that we cannot wait for a superior nuclear technology to become available before taking action. Because renewables are intermittent, with current technology they are not practical as a major source of power for most large prosperous countries. So, until a superior nuclear technology becomes available or until intermittent renewables become practical, the least risk approach is to build more pressurized water nuclear reactor power plants. Because the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor has a passive emergency cooling system, it should be much safer than currently used reactors.
Although the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks very promising, there is no guarantee that it is the best way to go. Therefore, work on other reactor types should continue.
I’m with you. The only comment I would make is that need for “baseload” power isn’t as big a deal as it was once thought to be; i.e., integrating large volumes of variable resources isn’t as tough as we once believed. More on this here: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/03/22/baseload-power-myths/.
Here is another article on the development of the LFTR in China:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1452011/chinese-scientists-urged-develop-new-thorium-nuclear-reactors-2024
From the article:
“Professor Li, director of the project’s molten salt chemistry and engineering technology division, said the smog crisis had provided huge impetus for their research.
“‘The problem of coal has become clear. If the average energy consumption per person doubles, this country will be choked to death by polluted air,’ he said. ‘Nuclear power provides the only solution for massive coal replacement and thorium carries much hope.'”
Note especially the last sentence in the above quotation.
” Put not your trust in princes…. ” (Psalm 146:3-5).
Policy announcements by the G7, should be taken with a measure of cynicism.
Given the political circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that any G7 conference is likely to result in high minded, but vague resolutions. Something for everyone, and able to be interpreted by all sides as support !
China, India, and all developing nations may pay lip service to “green” policies, but continue to prioritize economic expansion.
Some observations on your bullet points.
> Education (especially higher eduction for females) along with economic prosperity created with advanced industrialized consumer societies, is the best method of reducing population growth.
> Wind, Solar are still very immature industries. At the present time, without heavy government subsidies these technologies are not economically viable. That’s not to say, they won’t continue to improve, and with better storage make an increasing contribution. But we are talking many decades, not next week !
> China will not put an axe through its development of coal ! The PRC is heavily committed to a 30 year massive expansion of coal fired power, in addition to massive pipeline project into central Asia and Russia. The PRC government is spending billions to a 15 year engineering project to allow access for massive sea going coal ships to navigate deeply into the PRC interior. The PRC has already completed 76 of a planned 871, gigantic coal fired power stations.
Advanced Nuclear has merit, but is also expensive and slow to build.
As the need for industrial energy continues to rise, technologies which need a complete restructure of society or distribution infrastructure, .will not be adopted.
Instead, the are a lot of methods available, or in advanced development that will substantially, effectively and economically mitigate the negatives created by the use of fossil fuels.
This is an area we are neglecting, in favour of expensive, wild scheme that invariably prove impractical.
“Royal Dutch Shell has done a look. They have some of the best strategists that I’ve run into in a long time (and I was a strategist in the military). Their look says, the future is a blueprint, or the future is a scramble. They talk about 2075 – how dwindling water resources, dwindling petroleum resources, gas and oil, and so forth, are going to cause world leaders to have to either cooperate and coordinate – ‘blueprint’ – or fight each other, mercilessly, for half a century or longer. Royal Dutch Shell believes it’s probably going to be the latter. They call that ‘scramble’…”
– Lawrence Wilkerson, retired United States Army soldier and the former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a 2009 speech.
I live in New Zealand where 75% of our electricity is from hydro, geothermal, and wind. We could easily replace our bit of coal with more geothermal and be 100% renewable with political will. Shell in NZ wants to develop methane hydrates on the sea floor and make NZ a major GAS exporter to Asia!! Beating the oil Co is the world’s biggest problem.
Roger,
Brace yourself ! New Zealand is siting on vast of oil and gas resources. The reserve may be as big as Saudi Arabia !
With Geo-thermal resources declining, and oil/gas extraction technology rapidly increasing, the exploitation of NZ’s oil and gas may make the value of Australia’s vast resources pale by comparison. Only 10 years ago, the huge cost and extreme difficulty of tapping these reserves was considered economically and logistically nonviable. In recent years, technology has improved dramatically, and the Western Oil companies, are undertaking serious surveys.
“Beating oil companies” is a futile exercise. The 350,000 products derived from oil, are absolutely essential to the continuation of human civilization and economy. Oil isn’t fuel ! Oil produces a wide range of products from medicines to fertilizer. It’s fair to say that nearly every part of your life is sustained by an oil product.
Cameron,
One of the problems of quoting a person, who in turn is quoting from another source, compiled from even more diverse sources, is the context is inclined to get distorted.
Back in 2009, Col Lawrence Wilkerson was quoting from a report compiled between 2005-2008, and presented in 2008 by the retiring Shell Chairman, Jeroen van der Veer.
Shell’s scenario (s) were reliant upon analyses and information supplied by the World Bank WDI, Oxford Economics, IEA UN Population Division, Energy Balances of OECD Countries, IEA Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries, compiled during 1999-2005.
These addressed :
1. Surging energy demand
2. Supplies will struggle to keep up
3. Stresses on our environment are increasing
Shell’s disclaimer carefully pointed out the danger of it’s own reports becoming quickly outdated, or inaccurate, by the advent of new technical or scientific developments.
Since that report, a great deal has changed. The methodology and accuracy of the sources Shell analysts relied upon, has proved deeply flawed.
The Shell report did not foresee incredible technological advances in the fossil fuel industry, while over estimating the contribution of non-fossil fuels, and completely missing the environmental havoc created by US corn ethanol.
Rapid advances in science and technology, have rendered this 2008 report, fairly obsolete.
( I guess that’s one of the problems of being in the prophesy business :).
The world has changed a great deal since 2006. The G7 summit reflects the last hurrah of the “green boom” era, as the lessons from the enthusiasm of that era, become apparent.
For die-hard believers of the ideology that drove the “green boom”, it will be hard to adjust. (that’s understandable, there are those who still advocate prohibition, 80 years after it’s abolition!).
In the post-boom era, new energy technologies are forced to compete on practical and results oriented terms. The vast sums, most public money, squandered during the Boom on on technologies supported mostly by ideology, is drying up.
That doesn’t mean research and development into alternate energy won’t continue, but it does mean that it’s practicability will come under greater scrutiny and economic monitoring.
Investment in new technologies will continue, but investors will become better informed and more critical. The era of publicly funded “blue sky” investments, is hopefully drawing to a close.
——————[]—————–
Oh, by the way, I’m still eager to receive the information you were going to provide me on EV emergency vehicles ? Despite my best efforts, I just can’t find a manufacturer building the 15-20 ton Fire Engines, capable of operating on battery power ? Interestingly, even Tesla admit it’s beyond Tesla’s capability.
We’ve been working on a smaller, limited use, hybrid, but would be really interested in a full EV.
Or, maybe you were just using a little “poetic ” licence when you made your claim ? 🙂
Heya marcopolo – I’ve been rather busy, and responding to you just hasn’t been a priority for me.
That said, here’s a three-part item to consider: 1) There will be some applications for fossil fuel that will take a little longer to fade, and big red fire trucks could be one of them for a little while. 2) That doesn’t mean we all need to burn prehistoric carbon fuels for every current application, and 3) it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the various proven sunlight energy renewables as much as we can.
By the way. Lawrence Wilkerson has discussed that conclusion at Shell a number if times – here’s one:
http://renegadeinc.com/colonel-lawrence-wilkerson-the-future/
Enjoy.
Hi Cameron,
It’s certainly interesting to meet a fellow viewer of Ross Ashcroft’s show. Ross Ashcroft and Dominic Frisby are very funny, super talented, and extremely entertaining. Both found success as stand-up comedians in such venues as London’s ” Downstairs At The Kingʼs Head Club”.
Although neither are economists, they both have a passion for political-financial matters. (although, I can’t see their advocacy for returning to the Gold Standard, gaining acceptance any time soon ! :).
Like you, they are well meaning and articulate. Like you, they’re also long on belief and short on detail. That’s the trouble with coming from a fixed political/moral/ideological/philosophical position. The temptation always exists to work backwards. Earnest advocates of any particular theory, often carefully structure (or interpret) all new information as favourably supporting the fixed belief.
Evidence to the contrary is easily dismissed in a number of ways. The most common are to make the theory’s supporting facts, vague and futuristic, or involve conspiracies by sinister forces, even re-adjusting previous facts, and shifting the goal posts, to justify errors.
While all this is going on, the real environmental issues, things that can be done straight away, with a minimum of disruption and benefit, get ignored.
There really is no issue between fossil fuel use, and Solar. The only question that will determine the viability of any energy source, is it’s capacity to generate usable power, and remain economically viable.
If an alternate power source, can sell enough voluntary customers to ensure viability, it will succeed. Like organic farming, it may require some initial government start up incentives and support. Customers and may need to be persuaded to pay a premium.
This is the natural progression of technology. However, what is not beneficial, or desirable, is to try and “rig” the marketplace, to allow inferior technologies to proliferate, simply to fulfill ideological dogma.
The point I’m making, is that high minded advocacy, is largely valueless, mostly hypocritical, and detracts from more humble, but far more effective ways of benefiting the environment.
I know perfectly well that no technology currently exists, that would allow the building of EV emergency service vehicles. (If there was, I would be building them !) .I also know that without coal and oil, the modern black top highway, is impossible to build. I realize there’s no economic or technically practical alternative.
I fervently hope that one day in future, the human genius for innovation and technology will produce alternatives. But, in the meantime, I will pay due respect to reality, the industries, their investors, employees and management, that has provided me, along with all citizens of Western nations, with prosperity, security, and quality of life.
I deplore the hypocrisy of those who make a career from hating the fossil fuel industry, while enjoying the benefits it provides.
The Western world, and the US in particular can’t continue borrowing debt to subsidize impractical technologies, simply on ideological grounds.
This encourages a “Cargo Cult ” mentality. The current debt crisis, is an example of what happens, when governments, lose control of the economy to fulfill unrealistic promises. Not only does it breed spoiled, irresponsible citizens, but corrupts democratic principles as effectively as “Bread and Circuses ” corrupted the people of ancient Rome into becoming a spoiled mob.
It’s time to forget “grand schemes” requiring massive social restructuring, and “blue sky ” policies based on the dubious merits of “consensus scientists”. It’s time to give people realistic environmental goals, that don’t involve complicated new taxes, massive injections of borrowed money, and endless moral lectures.
It’s time to start effective action. Start with measurable priorities. Things that can be achieved with existing resources, and don’t disrupt economies.Policies that are immediately beneficial environmentally, and beneficially.
The truth is the commercial viability of any advanced new concept energy source, is its capacity to widely and reliably generate cleaner usable power, and do so in such a way as to remain economically viable.
If an advanced (i.e. cleaner and/or more reliable) alternate power source can attract and then sell enough customers on adopting it, to ensure commercial viability, it will succeed.
We know the human genius for innovation in technology will produce more advanced – 3E – (Energy, Economy and Environmental) alternatives. In fact this has already occurred. The problem these new innovations and their developers need to overcome is old fashioned and long ingrained, stale and staid thinking. Like the well-known movie line goes, that sort of thinking must be “carefully taught.”
Breaking News:
The East Baltimore C.A.R.E. neighborhood will be the beneficiary of a project that includes solar installations for 10 families and a community center, cool roofs for increased efficiency, and 1600 hours of hands-on solar training opportunities for local residents. The project is led by the nonprofit GRID Alternatives in partnership with the Baltimore Office of Sustainability and the Baltimore Energy Challenge which is made possible with support from the Abell Foundation.
This will be the first Baltimore area project for GRID Alternatives, a nonprofit solar installer.
The solar systems in the C.A.R.E. neighborhood will be installed by job trainees from Civic Works, who will be getting their first taste of solar installation after installing cool roofs on the homes.
Additional supporters include Constellation, Baltimore Housing, Wells Fargo Foundation and GRID Alternatives’ national equipment partners SunEdison, SunPower, Enphase Energy, IronRidge, SnapNRack and Quickmount PV.
GRID Alternatives’ projects are funded by private donors, California cap-and-trade revenue, and the solar industry. GRID Alternatives has ten regional offices and affiliates serving California, Colorado, the New York tri-state region, the mid-Atlantic region and Tribal communities nationwide.
My company (AAECorp.com) is offering inner city, small town and suburban neighborhoods another low-carbon choice in this novel new field of endeavor. AAEC will offer our patented Sequential Grates fuels handling system to enable widespread adoption of greater local self-sufficiency by offering our scalable biomass and waste-to-energy technology as an out-of-the-box alternative to providing localized heating, power and biofuels using conventional but finite and global warming fossil fuel resources.