[Peakoil] Correspondence on PO

Thu Mar 23 17:09:52 EST 2006

I recently offered to give a Peak Oil talk to the secretary of our local
(Captains Flat) Community Association. As background I had pointed to
the Senate Inquiry, and to the ACT Peak Oil submission.

For interest, here's the ensuing correspondence. Some more
quasi-original words for the archives. 

BTW, if you missed it, the link at the bottom is a Richard Heinberg
article that appeared today in Energy Bulletin.

--  

Hi Peter

Thanks again for the comments. Putting a response together has helped be
get some ideas together and find some key links. 

You wrote (below):

 >But I personally don't subscribe to apocalyptic views of anything, as
it's the nature of humans that we adapt. Of course, we often do so at
the cost of other species and the environment generally, but that means
humanity will survive even if the rest of the planet doesn't!

Certainly. I s'pose it's a question of population numbers and
lifestyles. Ecologists estimate that the H. sapiens carrying capacity of
the planet, without fossil fuels (or a fuel source of equivalent energy
density and quality) is about 2-2.5 billion, as against the ~6.5 billion
we currently have. 

This is largely because the use of cheap, high density fuels have
allowed large increases in agricultural capacity, through farm
mechanisation, oil or natural gas based fertilisers and pesticides, and
the freeing up of land that used to be used to graze draft animals and
horses. Modern agriculture has been described as 'the use of land to
turn oil into food'. Human population increase has almost exactly
tracked the rate and timing of fossil fuel use.

>The advantage of peak oil of course is an end to the Greenhouse Effect!

Peak Oil and Greenhouse, as issues, are sometimes called the
'hydrocarbon twins'. They certainly should be treated and modelled as a
combined issue, as they interrelate in complex ways. Brian Fleay's
submission (#74) to the Senate Inquiry, for example, stresses the need
for this, and is worth a read. There is some research that suggests that
climate change models may overestimate the amount of fossil fuels
available to be burned, which is good news. There are caveats, however. 

Examples: Increased coal consumption (to, say, power electric vehicles
or light rail) will increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if not done
cleanly. Similarly, coal-to-liquids technologies to synthesize transport
fuels may generate increased GHGs; increased use of timber as a fuel for
cooking and heating (after depletion of oil and natural gas sets in)
will increase GHGs.

Energy by definition provides the 'ability' to do work, this includes
GHG abatement measures and timely development of technologies.
Close-to-home example: rising temperatures and increased wind strengths
due to climate change mean increased incidence and severity of forest
fires. Diesel fuel shortages and/or high cost would mean less ability to
fight fires. Forest destruction involves big release of GHGs and
significant loss of carbon sinks. Positive feedback loops. 

>I'm surprised to see no mention in your document of bio-fuels.

You make good points here. We expected that there would be more detailed
submissions on bio-fuels from organisations with more expertise, so we
intentionally took the approach of reminding the committee of the
factors which should be kept in mind when assessing all proposed
alternative transport fuels and energy sources, particularly the concept
of EROEI or energy profit ratios. None of us are 'against' them, used
wisely. I've done lots of personal research on biodiesel, with a view to
converting some of our proposed olive and soy production to biodiesel,
to power the Hi-Lux ute and other farm equipment. (I'd prefer to do it
all electrically, but 1.05 kW of solar panels only goes so far).
Bio-fuels will certainly form part of the energy mix in the future.

Some key factors are: 

*	
	Energy Return on Energy Invested (particularly with the large
amounts of fossil-fuel, fertilisers and pesticides used in current
production methods)  
*	
	Problems of scale (Ethanol: If we turned all Australian
sugarcane into ethanol we'd get only 5 litres ethanol a week per car.
The current 350 megalitres target for 2010 is just 1.4 % of present fuel
needs. Bio-diesel: All Australian oil seed converted to bio-diesel would
be the equivalent of just 6% of our current diesel consumption.  Source:
Matt Mushalik, quoting the Australian Government energy white paper,
2004 p 123)
*	
	Other environmental, political and social impacts (see this
hard-hitting George Monbiot article:
http://www.energybulletin.net/11525.html)

A good overview of EROEI and other matters is at:
http://www.energybulletin.net/14120.html 

>Power Down would otherwise mean the concentration of all population in
large towns and cities where public transport is viable - smaller towns,
villages and rural living (other than for agriculture) would presumably
all come to an end.

While 'new urbanism' style designs may offer some good ideas, big cities
are still likely to have problems with their 'metabolism' - food inputs
and waste outputs. There are currently many 're-localisation' projects
for local and rural communities happening around the world. Many of
these make good templates. A small sample: 

*	
	Kinsale, Ireland: http://www.energybulletin.net/9230.html
*	
	Tompkins County, USA east coast:
http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/doc/project.htm
*	
	Willits, California: http://www.energybulletin.net/13259.html
*	
	...for a less positive view, see also:
http://www.energybulletin.net/12984.html

Lastly, this lead article from Energy Bulletin today (on the US
Administration's response) is notable for its up-to-the-minute
information and mention of many of the most important high-level
commentators and reports, government and private: 

http://www.energybulletin.net/14102.html
<http://www.energybulletin.net/14102.html>  

Regards
Sandy 

________________________________

Peter wrote, (Following my offer to give the talk) 

 Hi Sandy 

It would be interesting.

But I personally don't subscribe to apocalyptic views of anything, as
it's the nature of humans that we adapt. Of course, we often do so at
the cost of other species and the environment generally, but that means
humanity will survive even if the rest of the planet doesn't! The
advantage of peak oil of course is an end to the Greenhouse Effect! (I
find peak oil and odd phrase, as I'm sure there's a petrol retailer
called Peak Oil).

I'm surprised to see no mention in your document of bio-fuels. Did you
watch SBS Dateline the other night, half of which was about ethanol in
Brazil? Contrary to the views put about by some who presumably hold
shares in the fossil fuel industry, ethanol and biodiesel are clean and
green, and even if their production isn't, they CAN BE. The
environmentalist interviewed even agreed (though landclearing for sugar
is an issue in Brazil as it is here, and burning the sugar cane stubble
is an issue there too for global warming and general pollution - they
didn't explain why they continue to do this, as I thought the stubble
could also be used for making ethanol.)

I guess alternative fuels (forget hydrogen as it must be created using
vast amounts of electricity, probably from nuclear power or fossil
fuels) fall somewhere between the Power Down and Magic Elixir solutions.
(I rather like the idea of ethanol being a Magic Elixir! But I think
biodiesel is probably the better option.) Power Down would otherwise
mean the concentration of all population in large towns and cities where
public transport is viable - smaller towns, villages and rural living
(other than for agriculture) would presumably all come to an end.

Peter

p.s. if Peak Oil results in a Mad Max society where everyone's prowling
around looking for petrol, it could be kinda fun...

________________________________

Notice:
The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised.  If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://act-peakoil.org/pipermail/peakoil/attachments/20060323/2c0cabb7/attachment-0001.htm