NASA’s Hansen: Implications of ‘Peak Oil’ for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
James Hansen has coauthored a new paper on oil and climate. He has posted a note explaining that:
Needless to say, liquid coal is a nonstarter. Here is the abstract:
Peaking of global oil production may have a large effect on future atmospheric CO2 level and climate change, depending upon choices made for subsequent energy sources. We suggest that, if estimates of oil and gas reserves by the Energy Information Administration are realistic, it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding approximately 450 ppm, provided that carbon capture and sequestration is implemented for coal and unconventional fossil fuels. Coal-fired power plants without sequestration must be phased out before mid-century to achieve this limit on atmospheric CO2. We suggest that it is also important to “stretch” conventional oil reserves via energy efficiency, thus avoiding the need to extract liquid fuels from coal or unconventional fossil fuels. We argue that a rising price on carbon emissions is probably needed to keep CO2 beneath the 450 ppm ceiling.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Joe,
Is Hansen saying that using coal in a way that provided carbon capture and sequestration is okay? Would you say that even if carbon capture and sequestration were economically feasible, which it is not, coal to liquid fails to meet the efficiency requirement?
September 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Yes, Hansen is saying that coal with CCS is okay. Clearly CCS will not be cost-effective until CO2 has a price — around $30 a ton is what the CCS experts say. Liquid coal is not part of the solution to global warming, with or without CCS.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The interaction of PO and GW is something that concerns me a great deal.
Without PO in the picture, we would have a hard time finding the political spine to address GW properly. Unless Joe runs for and becomes president and makes Al Gore his Grand Poobah of All Things Environmental. But I digress.
With PO, or as I’m calling in my writing, the oil crunch, we will have an enormous incentive to resort to liquid coal. And with the higher costs of oil-based energy, we will want to find cheap energy wherever we can, which till mean non-CCS coal-fired electricity–yet another siren call we must ignore.
If the PO people I trust (ASPO, Chris Skrebowski) are right, and the worldwide peak in oil production arrives in 2010 to 2011 (i.e. well within the lifetime of any recently purchased SUV), we’re going to have one enormous set of challenges on our hands.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Joe,
If we reach peak oil by 2010, the market for alternatives and efficiency wouldn’t need any assist from government. The consensus seems to be that PO a long way off.
Is there now a market price for CO2?
This is off topic, but a while back you asked for suggestions for the right side column on your page. Mine is that under the book blurb you display your “mission statement”. Global warming is a serious problem. A drastic reduction in CO2 emissions is required to avoid possible/probable catastrophe. The necessary reductions can be attained through efficiencies, renewables and technological advancements in alternative energy sources without social or economic upheaval or higher net taxes. I’d then like to see your rules for offsets.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
We are clearly peaking in conventional oil outside of the Persian Gulf. The unknown is how much the Gulf can increase production and how much unconventional oil can be brought on. Most forms of unconventional oil are really bad for climate change — so I suspect that next decade, just as the world starts to get serious about climate change, it will really start feeling the strains of peak oil.
The good news is that if you solve the global warming problem, you solve the peak oil problem (but not necessarily vice versa).
I confess I have not yet finished my rules for offsets, but when I do, I will definitely create one post that includes them all — and I certainly hope to be able to put posts like that on the right-hand column.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Joe:
Your comment;
The good news is that if you solve the global warming problem, you solve the peak oil problem (but not necessarily vice versa).
is just a random thought without some kind of time line. You cannot just throw these comments down and expect your cridibility to survive.
Think China, India…etc. building new coal-fired capacity and automobiles at a rate we cannot even grasp and then tell your readers what you mean by;
[The good news is that if you solve the global warming problem, you solve the peak oil problem (but not necessarily vice versa).]
For me, the good news is that if I win the lottery, I can quit my job! I can think of other good news comments but I rest my case.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:12 am
John:
I was replying to a comment, and don’t typically repeat all the arguments and analysis I have made over the years in every post. I do spell out the full solution in my book — and have touched on the key elements of the solution in the blog.
I have been thinking of doing a series of posts laying out the solution, and your comment will be more motivatation.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Joe, thank you for that comment. I look forward to reading and participating in the solution(s) posts.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“The good news is that if you solve the global warming problem, you solve the peak oil problem (but not necessarily vice versa).”
What if solving GW is as simple as phasing out (unsequestered) coal?
Won’t we still have a problem getting people to work with diminishing amounts of oil and natural gas?