“The issues of climate and future temperature increases have become part of our everyday life, and central in this debate is carbon dioxide. The fossil fuels we use contain carbon and hydrocarbon compounds, and carbon dioxide is released together with energy when we burn these.
“However, it seems that the amounts of fossil fuels themselves are not perceived as a problem among those debating climate change. Instead, the problem is only ever that we are expected to use too much of them. The idea that the combined volumes of these fuels are insufficient to cause the changes in climate that are currently discussed is nowhere to be heard…
This article entitled ‘Severe Climate Change Unlikely Before We Run Out of Fossil Fuel’ by Kjell Aleklett and republished yesterday by Australian e-journal On Line Opinion concludes with comment that “the world’s greatest future problem is that too many people must share too little energy.”
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Vairy interesting – clever chaps those old Swedes. Don’t you love lateral thinkers? My old Ford Falcon is now 16 years old. Shall I buy a diesel replacement, a petrol, or keep the old bus running another five years or so and see what happens? Will bio-diesel be the way of the future? Shanks pony or treadlie? I’m glad I don’t live in a cold climate.
These are valid criticisms of the IPCC methodology but the study makes an equally significant error. They have failed to factor in improvements in productivity and the ultimate recoverability of reserves.
Productivity generally improves by 1-2% per annum and, at the very least, one should factor in a rate of improvement in recoverable reserves of a similar percentage. But when motivated by strong market signals there is evidence that much greater improvements are possible.
Given the changes in technology we have seen over the past century, there really is no excuse, as both the study and the IPCC has done, for assuming that the same amount of CO2 will be emitted from a tonne of coal in 2050 as is emitted today. Even a modest, 1% compound annual improvement in emission “cleaning” capacity will see total emissions/tonne of coal or oil reduced by half within 70 years. At 2% annual improvement this halving of emissions will be achieved in only 34 years.
This order of improvement is already being achieved through fuel use efficiencies so there is absolutely no basis for assuming the same cannot be achieved through emission “cleaning”.
It is also a very good point about the IPCC’s scarenarios assuming that emissions will continue into the next century. For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate.
But all it will take for this entire “problem” to go away is for someone to discover a profitable use for CO2. Almost overnight it will turn into a valuable resource in it’s own right which will justify the cost of capture. The market will then place a premium on emissions that can have their CO2 captured cheaply. And at that point we will need to pay serious attention to ensure that our biosphere is getting enough CO2 to meet it’s needs and keep us warm.
So far, the IPCC have underestimated the use of fossil fuels, if anything. There is an interesting point, peak oil, so that supplies will slow down, but plenty of it to stretch out over the next century or so if you don’t mind paying a lot of money for it. To date, people have been paying a lot more than they used to.
As it is, climate change is already committed for several decades, even if we stop with the burning of them today.
The key point to be taken from this article is that the high end “scarenarios” presented by the IPCC represent improbable extremes, not realistic projections. They were always severely compromised on other grounds, like the assumption that India and China and all of Africa would achieve OECD level economic standard, and do so on the US “urban sprawl” model rather than the much more energy efficient Japanese/Taiwanese/Singaporean model.
When these factors are combined with the real decline in hydrocarbon stocks, especially in the latter half of the century when the exponential factors were really claimed to kick in, then the scarenarios have even less credibility.
And when technology improvements, particularly in fuel efficiency and emission cleaning, are also factored in then it becomes quite clear that every one of the IPCC scarenarios are pure fantasy.
At this early stage of the journey the carbon ship may appear slow to turn, especially to those on it, but once it has turned there will be no mistaking its true course.
But lets face it, this issue is not about carbon at all. It is nothing more than the continuation of that ancient battle between optimist and pessimist, between the generous and the tightarses. And luckily, the optimists have ignored the pessimists and developed new solutions. Looking back on history, there is not much that has been bequeathed to us from the pessimists.
Ian, I’ve got it! carbonated water! it’ll sell for stacks per bottle and the government will just let us tap the pristine reserves until… well… they run out!
Although hang on… if I take carbon from one place, and don’t put it back in that place, where will it go?
So at what point do I start thanking the optimists? Housing affordability, erosion of IR rights, cost of education through the roof, cost of health care through the roof, increased job insecurity, heavy dependance on unsustainable industries, increased inequality, geo-political instability, nuclear weapons, destruction of pristine habitat…luckily we can all afford TV’s to watch it all happening!
I wonder if the women of Phillipines are thanking the optimistic nature of those wacky marketing and sales teams from the states for making their babies grow so big and strong.
Thanks optimists! or am I just being pessimistic?
ps: Ian – “For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate” – what assumption have you made for net energy use in 2100?
pps: if the learning curve is as you suggest, then why hasn’t emissions been going down globally for the last 10, 20, 50 years?
Gosh, Anthony’s feeling his oats. Pity so much of the post was off-topic waffle.
I don’t need an assumption for net energy use for 2100. If you had a rudimentary capacity to follow a thread you would understand that my reference was on a unit input basis. That is, with a modest 0.5 of 1% annual improvement in cleaning technology, the emissions from a standard tonne of coal in 2100 would only be 60.57% of what they are today from a comparable tonne of coal.
And the reason why emissions have not matched the learning curve over the past 10 to 50 years is that the whole notion of cleaning coal emissions has only been around for a few years.
Is that the best you can do?
Ian, correct me if I am wrong but you suggested the predicted IPCC sceanrios for emissions could not be correct because the learning curve alone – on energy extraction from coal – makes the scenario’s unrealistic.
This makes assumptions about net energy use absolutely critical to your argument. It doesn’t matter how your efficiency improves, if the input escaltes at 300% and the efficiency improves 50%, guess what? emissions keep going up.
Secondly, reducing the level of CO2 per unit of useful energy extracted from coal can be done in about 1000 more ways than actually cleaning the co2 off emissions so yes, despite the only recent exploration of co2 cleaning post burning, your 1-2% productivity improvements should have been kicking in around enegry efficiency across all sectors of the economy.
In fact, it has, energy efficiency has improved… lots…
But hang on, my calculator says emissions are still going up. How could it be so?
Here’s one thought. New coal plants get built with new technology. Old coal plants keep running. Net energy use increases (despite efficiency improvements!!!). Emissions keep going up.
Any monkey can see your logic is bogus Ian.
But gee your optimistic, if not delusional
when did Ian last read anything from the IPCC?
btw davey et al, there’s a strong case for keeping good old cars running for as long as possible & avoding modern disposable cars (esp because when technology is leaping ahead, newer cars devalue more quickly, meaning less lifetime usage from their embodied costs of production). Massive costs (energy) in tooling, shipping & production esp if the chassis & powertrain isn’t shared across a large number of units & across models. also, high-tech is harder (energy intensive too) to seperate & recycle. Someone did a study on it in US you mighta seen.
Ian you amaze me. You just CANNOT accept or it seems even contemplate there might possibly be a problem with fossil fuel supplies. Efficiency of extraction is actually a negative because when these larger elephant fields begin to decline it occurs more rapidly than anticipated. This can be seen in Kuwait’s Burgen and Mexico’s Cantarell fields. We don’t need any surprises in this market! When this decline begins in Saudi’s giant Ghawar we are on the downward slope and you’ll need more than optimism to manage how it affects your life …
There are any number of obvious reasons why nobody is targeting beer producers to demand a cap on the production of CO2 during fermentation.
One of them is that it’s not about the CO2… it’s about the beer.
By way of general information:-
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/athabasca/
It seems, Anthony, that your “any monkey” has his head in a paper bag. The IPCC has already factored in the additional power plants but have neglected to factor in any technology improvements in carbon capture. And that means that whatever numbers they have projected for the future are wrong.
At no time did I express or imply that the cleaning technology improvements would be good enough to actually reduce total emissions below 1990 levels. But this is a long term possibility beyond year 2100.
Combine improved carbon cleaning with declining hydrocarbon supplies, rising energy prices, increased use of nuclear and other alternatives, improved energy efficiency and development on a less energy intensive model and the EUPCC projections revert to pure bunkum.
lets play spot the difference…
“For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate.”
“That is, with a modest 0.5 of 1% annual improvement in cleaning technology, the emissions from a standard tonne of coal in 2100 would only be 60.57% of what they are today from a comparable tonne of coal.”
Ian, I thought they modelled this scenario as well?
“Combine improved carbon cleaning with declining hydrocarbon supplies, rising energy prices, increased use of nuclear and other alternatives, improved energy efficiency and development on a less energy intensive model and the EUPCC projections revert to pure bunkum”
wasn’t the whole point to compare different scanrios/different assumptions and test the CO2 output? Sometimes it pays to read things before you slag them off.
Now lets play spot the delusional denialist in retreat
“But lets face it, this issue is not about carbon at all. It is nothing more than the continuation of that ancient battle between optimist and pessimist, between the generous and the tightarses. And luckily, the optimists have ignored the pessimists and developed new solutions. Looking back on history, there is not much that has been bequeathed to us from the pessimists.”
The differences between the two paras are quite consistent with a normal clarification. But don’t mind me, Anthony, readers of this blog are not stupid. They will not mistake your pathetic little attempts at point scoring as contributive input. Take a bath.
The general expectation of running projections is to base them as close as possible to likely reality to then get an understanding of the sensitivity to key variables.
The IPCC did no such thing. It provided nothing more than an array of bull$hit with a view to limiting the publics understanding of the situation.
Anyone actually interested in how the IPCC analyses variables such as future availability of energy resources (they use the IEA) and learning curves on energy extraction, efficiency of end use etc) can have a look at
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/chapters/Ch4_Energy.pdf
and for how they attribute emissions in various scenarios here is some more good stuff.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf
Even a token read reveals a well thought out and considered analysis with no attempt to say one scenario is more likely than another.
Ian, not only have you not bothered reading any of this, you have not read any of the other comments on this thread, or you would have realised I am not the only one who thinks your analysis is bogus