Hubbert's Peak, The Question of Coal and Climate Change

2,764 views
2,692 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,764
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • IPCC web site is at http://www.ipcc.ch Press release for working group 1 http://www.ipcc.ch/press/prwg2feb07.htm 600 authors from 40 countries, 620 expert reviewers, 113 government reviewers Press release for working group 2 http://www.ipcc.ch/wg2_pdf/press_conference_brussels_060407.pdf 394 authors 1180 expert reviewers 49,000 review comments For working group 3 a list is at http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg3authors.pdf Process described at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Preface.pdf Executive Summary is available at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf Temperature information on page 5 Sea level information on page 7 The global sea-level rise is being measured with JPL’s Topex/Poseidon and Jason satellites: Sea level from a radar altimeter, the orbit is determined by laser ranging at http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ Comparison with local changes Sinking land, up to 750mm per year in Long Beach (9m total) from pumping oil out of the Wilmington oil field, halted by pumping in water to increase the pressure El Ni ñ o events can cause a 300-mm rise in sea level regionally for a period of several months at http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ Rising land in the north, rebounding from glaciers. For example, Helsinki is rising at 4mm per year. (personal communications from Juha Karhu, Professor of Geology at the University of Helsinki) Information on the Long Beach subsidence from http://cms.longbeach.gov/oil/subsidence.html Subsidence, the sinking of the land surface, began in the 1940's with the pumping of under ground water at Terminal Island Naval Shipyard.  The area sank more than four feet by 1945, far more than attributed to groundwater withdrawal.   In 1951, the rate of subsidence exceeded two feet per year.  By 1958, the affected area was 20 square miles and extended beyond the Harbor District.  Total subsidence reached 29 feet in the center of the "Subsidence Bowl".  The ocean inundated wharves, rail lines and pipelines were warped or sheared, while buildings and streets were cracked and displaced.  Ninety-five oil wells were severely damaged or sheared off by underground slippage.  Oil, gas and water production caused pressure losses and the weight of the overburden compacted the oil sands.  The surface sank in response to this underground compaction. In the 1950's, the DOP showed that water injection (water flooding) would repressure the oil formations, stop the underground compaction as well as surface subsidence, and increase oil recovery.  In order to conduct effective coordinated water flood operations, the various fault blocks needed to be "unitized".  In 1958, after the State passed the California Subsidence Act, the City and numerous private owners began creating four Fault Block Units.  Each Fault Block Unit was operated by one owner and the revenues and expenses were shared on proportion to each participant's ownership percentage.  By 1966, subsidence had stabilized and in some areas, later rebounded (rose) by up to 2 feet.  Damage and remediation costs reached an estimated $100 million. Many oil experts had recognized for years that the oil pools extended eastward under the City and offshore to Seal Beach.  Development was not started in this area until 1965 because of drilling restrictions placed by the City in order to protect against subsidence. After it became apparent that water injection was stopping subsidence and the easterly oil field extension could be developed safely, the City, by vote of the people, lifted the drilling ban.  A lesson learned, the citizens of Long Beach required that the eastern offshore extension of the field be unitized prior to development and water injection be started immediately. At the same time, restrictions were placed on the development to ensure that subsidence would not occur and that the natural beauty of the shoreline would be protected.
  • Scenario report is at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm
  • Actual emissions from consumption and flaring of fossil fuels at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1.xls Excel table of scenario emissions and production is at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/data/allscen.xls The scenario A1C AIM had the highest emissions, 2.4Tt from 2005 to 2100, but we really should take into account the fact that the production needs to come down, and that the emissions for the ones that have not peaked would double if they peaked in 2100. B1T Message was lowest at 0.7Tt. First part of the acronym goes with a story line A1. The A1 storyline and scenario family describes a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are convergence among regions, capacity building and increased cultural and social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B) (where balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all energy supply and end use technologies). A2. The A2 storyline and scenario family describes a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in continuously increasing population. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and per capita economic growth and technological change more fragmented and slower than other storylines. B1. The B1 storyline and scenario family describes a convergent world with the same global population, that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, as in the A1 storyline, but with rapid change in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives. B2. The B2 storyline and scenario family describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global population, at a rate lower than A2, intermediate levels of economic development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the B1 and A1 storylines. While the scenario is also oriented towards environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels. The second half of the acronym gives the organization: Asian Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) from the National Institute of Environmental Studies in Japan (Morita et al ., 1994); Atmospheric Stabilization Framework Model (ASF) from ICF Consulting in the USA (Lashof and Tirpak, 1990; Pepper et al ., 1992, 1998; Sankovski et al ., 2000); Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect (IMAGE) from the National Institute for Public Health and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM) (Alcamo et al ., 1998; de Vries et al ., 1994, 1999, 2000), used in connection with the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) WorldScan model (de Jong and Zalm, 1991), the Netherlands; Multiregional Approach for Resource and Industry Allocation (MARIA) from the Science University of Tokyo in Japan (Mori and Takahashi, 1999; Mori, 2000); Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental Impact (MESSAGE) from the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria (Messner and Strubegger, 1995; Riahi and Roehrl, 2000); and the Mini Climate Assessment Model (MiniCAM) from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the USA (Edmonds et al ., 1994, 1996a, 1996b).
  • Reference for world crude-oil is drop http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41d.xls
  • Annual oil production information at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1a.htm The EIA makes forecasts of production each year, and they have been high eight years in a row. Comparisons for domestic oil production at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/retrospective/excel/table6.xls
  • Annual oil production information at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1a.htm Alaska and Hawaii were not states yet, and Hubbert’s prediction was for the lower 48 states. Alaska became a state in 1959.
  • Reference for sizes of fields and discovery in 1968 http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appb.pdf
  • Production at http://www.tax.state.ak.us/sourcesbook/AlaskaProduction.pdf For proved reserves see http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appb.pdf U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves 2005 Annual Report, Appendix B Top 100 Oil and Gas fields, page B-11, gives 1979 reserves
  • Depending on the agency, resources may or may not include the reserves From the USGS “ There is often confusion concerning the use of the terms coal “resources” and “reserves.”  Although the two terms are frequently used interchangeably, there are significant differences.  Coal resources include those in-place tonnage estimates determined by summing the volumes for identified and undiscovered deposits of coal of a minimum thickness (14 inches, 36.6 cm or more thick for anthracite and bituminous coal; 30 inches, 76.2 cm or more thick for lignite and subbituminous coal) and under less than a certain depth (6,000 feet, 1828.8 m). Coal reserves are a subset of the coal resources. To be classified as reserves, the coal must be considered as economically producible at the time of classification, but facilities for extraction need not be in place and operative.”
  • Oil and Gas Journal July 28, 2003, Rafael Sandrea, “OPECs next challenge, rethinking their quota system”. There was a discussion of a new quota system, and countries increased their reserves, presumably thinking that it would help them get higher quotas Reserves and the production 1987 to 2005 from the 2006 BP Statistical Review http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 The peak oil production years for Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait were in the 70s, and the peak year for the Saudis was 1981
  • Richard Nehring “Giant Oil Fields and World Oil Resources” 1978 http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2284/ gives probable reserves and 1975 cumulative production EIA production data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilproduction.html Reserves at 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390
  • If the cumulative production is a sigmoid curve, the plot of growth rate versus cumulative production is exactly linear. Sometimes the growth-rate plots are called Hubbert linearizations. The sigmoid curve is the Fermi-Dirac function in physics for holes, with time replacing energy. They may just be called rate plots. Biology reference is F. E. Smith 1963 "Population dynamics in Daphnia magna and a new model for population growth," Ecology, volume 44, pp. 651-663. Reference for King Hubbert is "Techniques of Prediction as Applied to the Production of Oil and Gas." Presented to a symposium of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., June 18-20, 1980. In Saul I. Gass, ed., Oil and Gas Supply Modeling, pp. 16-141. National Bureau of Standards special publication 631. Washington: National Bureau of Standards, 1982. The best discussion of rate plots is in Ken Deffeyes’ books, “Hubbert’s Peak”
  • Annual oil production information at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1a.htm
  • EIA production data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilproduction.html Richard Nehring “Giant Oil Fields and World Oil Resources” 1978 http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2284/ gives probable reserves and 1975 cumulative production
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 BP gives the data in toe. I use BP’s conversion factors of 7.33 barrels per ton to convert to barrels Reserves from the 2005 BGR Energy Resources Report. I use BP’s conversion factor of 42GJ/toe to convert BGR’s hydrocarbon reserves of 15,255EJ and non-conventional hydrocarbons 2,825EJ
  • Fossil fuel availability for IPCC scenarios is at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/071.htm These numbers include conventional, unconventional, high and low discovery levels, and technological improvements
  • Photograph at http://www.hitachi-c-m.com/au/news/topics/TP20050830152514614.html http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/InternationalMining/Chadwick2005h.pdf 90 tons per scoop, and the shovel has an apartment on board. http://www.hitachiconstruction.com/en_US/cfd/construction/hitachi_const/pdf/americas/Americas_1_05.pdf
  • “ A Crash Program Scenario for the Canadian Oil Sands Industry” Bengt Söderbergh, Fredrik Robelius and Kjell Aleklett Contact: Kjell Aleklett Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group Uppsala University, Box 535, SE-751 21, Sweden Contact e-mail: Aleklett@tsl.uu.se at http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/20060608EPOSArticlePdf.pdf For Canadian 2005 production see web site of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=112820 Production was 383kb/d of synthetic crude from mining, and 609kb/d bitumen. In 1998, the numbers were 308kb/d synthetic, and 282kb/d bitumen. Increase for synthetic is 3% per year. Increase for bitumen is 11% per year. Overall, the increase is 8% per year Production 1998 to 2005 Mining - Integrated Synthetic (thousands barrels/d) 308 324 320 349 441 429 462 383 Bitumen (thousands barrels/d) 282 244 289 310 303 435 532 609 http://www.eub.ca/docs/products/sts/st98-2006.pdf Reference for Reserves is Alberta’s Energy Reserves 2005 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2006-2015, by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ST98-2006 page 2-2 Table gives reserves in cubic meters. I used a density of 1 for converting. Reference for Canadian reserves, internal use, and export is the BP Statistical Review http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=112820 One interesting aspect of the Kyoto treaty is that there are no obligations on producers. Norway can call itself carbon neutral and export 2 million barrels of oil a day. What do they think will be done with the oil?
  • John Cornwell Collection of Coal Mining Photographs http://www.tlysau.org.uk/en/item10/28955 Coal trams, Merthyr Vale Colliery, Aberfan William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question , 1865 at http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0546 In 1860, according to William Jevons, the UK was 60% of the world’s coal production.
  • NBER millions of long tons at http://www.nber.org/databases/macrohistory/contents/uk.html Durham mining museum long tons http://www.dmm.org.uk/stats/toutput.htm DTI links 1957 to 1959 are converted from long tons to metric tons, later years are metric tons http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18938.xls http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes2_1_1.xls Current production at http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/et2_4.xls William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question , 1865 at http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0546 Jevons was interested in the exponential growth of production, and he said that it did not matter if there was more than a thousand years of coal left, it would be depleted in a hundred years time, because of the exponential growth. Number of mines in 1913 at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18938.xls
  • William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question , 1865 at http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0546 1853 cumulative on page 113
  • Coal industry in the UK http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/industry/page13125.html Strip mines listed as of March 31, 2006 at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/industry/opencast/page13184.html Assessment of future resources at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file14151.pdf 7 Deep mines listed as of March 31, 2006 at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/industry/deep-mines/page13381.html There were 7 major deep mines in production as at 31 March 2006. Name Location Tower Colliery Mid Glamorgan Daw Mill Colliery Warwickshire Harworth Colliery Nottinghamshire Kellingley Colliery North Yorkshire Maltby Colliery Rotherham, Yorkshire Thoresby Colliery Nottinghamshire Welbeck Colliery Nottinghamshire However, Harworth was closed August 2006 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070109/halltext/70109h0011.htm From Malcom Wickes (Minister for Science and Innovation): Nottinghamshire's contribution to those totals was almost 3.2 million tonnes of deep-mined coal—up from 2 million in 2004—from three mines: Harworth, which stopped production owing to geological problems in August 2006, and Thoresby and Welbeck Strip mine data and privatizing date at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18938.xls Coal investment aid http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file14150.xls Grants are quite direct. Look like research proposals. Proposal to make access to a particular seam.
  • http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625–D USGS Coal Assessment for the Illinois Basin 2000 page D36 The Energy Watch Group http://www.energywatchgroup.org/ “COAL: RESOURCES AND FUTURE PRODUCTION” from http://www007.upp.so-net.ne.jp/tikyuu/pdf_files/Coalreport.pdf Illinois has the third largest reserves of any US state (EIA gives 34Gt), but seems unlikely that it will produce a large fraction of these reserves. There is a lot of competition for the use of the land. Cumulative production is 6Gt, and current production is 30Mt, trend for remaining production in 2Gt.
  • http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/EdMoise/ch054141.jpg Photos by Edwin Moise, May 19, 2005 From Kaili to Wangba The road from Kaili to the Ge village of Wangba, in the eastern part of Guizhou province, goes through dramatic karst terrain.
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 Tim Wright "The Growth of the Modern Chinese Coal Industry," Modern China, volume 7, 1981, pp. 317-350 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-7004%28198107%297%3A3%3C317%3AGOTMCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D Article by Jianjun Tu Chinese coal 3.7 million workers produce 2.2Gt 90% underground, productivity is 590t per worker per year, similar to the UK in 1860, with 85Mlt produced by 250,000 workers, for 340 tons per worker The US numbers from the EIA are 1Gt for 79,000 workers, or 13,000 t/employee/year, 20 times higher. Fatalities occur at a rate one hundred times higher in China than in the US. Article by Keith Bradsher “ They point out that the decline assumed that local governments had followed Beijing's instructions to close 47,000 small, unsafe mines producing low-grade coal and many heavily polluting small power plants. Yet researchers who visited mines and power plants found that they often remained open, with the output not being reported to Beijing because local administrators feared an outcry if they shut down important employers.”
  • Photograph showing longwall mining operation in the Pittsburgh coal bed of the Monongahela Group in northern West Virginia. Photograph by CONSOL Coal Group/Bob Kohler Photography. USGS Coal Assessment for Appalachians 2000 B14 http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/ Early reserves in 1929 Power Resources of the World, Dunlop ed for anthracite in Eastern Fields 1913 reserves were 16.9Gt, production was 2.66Gt
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/ Much more discussion of Virginia coal production in “A Predictive Production Rate Life-Cycle Model for Southwestern Virginia Coalfields” by Robert C. Milici U.S. Geological Survey Reston, VA 20192 and Elisabeth V. M. Campbell , Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Charlottesville, VA 22902 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1147/
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/ Early reserves in 1929 Power Resources of the World, Dunlop ed are 17.3Gt, remaining production is 2.84Gt Current reserves from the EIA
  • Milici reference is at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-447/
  • Lots of coal train pictures at http://www.dogcaught.com/2006/10/ “I was disappointed in that the BNSF didn’t seem to be using those nice clean SD70ACe units to lead trains, but fortunately there were some clean ES44AC units and other clean GE power to keep me relatively happy. This train is waiting to enter the mainline after being loaded at South Black Thunder Mine:” (Campbell County, Wyoming) http://www.clui.org/clui_4_1/lotl/v28/j.html In the Southern Powder River Basin two adjacent operations compete for the title of largest coal mine in the nation, the North Antelope Rochelle Complex, owned by Peabody Energy, and the Black Thunder Coal Mine. With operations all over the world, Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, is the largest coal company in the world. It operates three mines in the Powder River Basin, but the North Antelope Rochelle is by far the largest, producing over 80 million tons per year. A few miles away, the Black Thunder Mine is owned by the Arch Coal Company, the nation’s second largest coal company, also headquartered in St. Louis. The mine has operated since 1977, and was the undisputed largest operation in the country until it was surpassed by Peabody’s mine several years ago. But in 2004, Arch Coal bought the nearby North Rochelle mine from Triton Coal and added it to the Black Thunder Mine Complex. With a combined output of over 90 million tons per year, this reestablishes Black Thunder’s claim as the largest coal mine in the nation, and quite probably the world. The scale of everything at Black Thunder is terrestrial and geologic. Its fleet of five draglines includes Ursa Major, a Bucyrus-Erie (B-E) 2570WS model, the third largest dragline in the nation. When it comes to machines this large, often only one of each model is ever made. They are assembled on site and never leave. In addition to the draglines are 11 giant electric shovels, dozens of 200 ton plus capacity dump trucks, and two towering storage silos, each with a 12,700 ton capacity. More than two tons of coal is produced at the Black Thunder mine every second, 24 hours per day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This is an amount of energy equivalent to a 600,000 barrel-per-day oil field, and enough to power over 5 million typical American homes. But getting the coal out of the ground is just a part of this monolithically simple economic structure. As much as 80% of the cost of coal is conveyance: getting it to where it needs to go. At Black Thunder, if you could pick up the extracted coal at the mine yourself, it would cost just $5 a ton. In Illinois, electrical utilities buy the same coal for $30 a ton. Coal is largely a product of the railroad.
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 For the New Zealand cumulative, I use the BP statistical review, and the production before 1981 is missing.
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 Does not include the former Soviet Union
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390
  • 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 For the New Zealand cumulative, I use the BP statistical review, and the production before 1981 is missing.
  • World Energy Council http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/launches/ser04/ser04.asp 2006 BP Statistical Review at http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6842&contentId=7021390 3.6boe/t is the average world energy density for coal in the BP Statistical Review over the last 10 years Fossil fuel availability for IPCC scenarios is at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/071.htm These numbers include conventional and allow for technical improvements If I can find cumulative production numbers for South Asia, Canada, and Mexico, these numbers would likely go down. It is possible that with a better production history for the Soviet Union, the numbers might go up.
  • The EIA link is http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/tab6.1.pdf Weighted by BGR reserves of gas and oil
  • Actual carbon emissions from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1.xls Back to the IPCC scenarios. We add our Producer Profile. If we consider that the consumption must eventually come down, the scenario A1C AIM requires 6 times as much fossil fuels as our profile. Jean Laherrere has a discussion of this in “Estimates of Oil Reserves” 2001 http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/IEW2001/pdffiles/Papers/Laherrere-long.pdf
  • Download MAGICC from http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/ MAGICC is one of the programs used for the 3 rd IPCC assessment report. Inputs were the same as the WRE (Wigley, Richels, Edmonds) constant CO2 profiles, except for future fossil-fuel carbon. I used these because they are defined through 2400. The IPCC scenarios stop in 2100. You can download the program and try the scenarios yourself. I use NSIM = 2 for all plots, which gives results like the program’s “best guess plots” Predictions were done by starting with Tom Wigley’s WRE450 scenario, which goes out to 2400, and modifying the fossil fuel carbon from 2010 on. For everything but fossil-fuel CO2, this is their no-government policy scenario. The current CO2 level is 380ppm, in the middle of the scale, and the pre-industrial level is 280ppm, on the bottom of the scale.
  • The contribution associated with future fossil-fuel use is calculated by running another simulation without the fossil fuel, but with all of the other greenhouse gases and the carbon associated with deforestation, and then subtracting. The contribution of the other greenhouse gases and earlier fossil fuel is a little larger, about 1.0K in the 22 nd century. MAGICC does not allow calculations beyond 2400.
  • World-wide carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel are 7Gt/y, but the only CO 2 we are putting in the ground now is associated with the production of fossil fuels, not the consumption MIT coal study http://web.mit.edu/coal/ Table 3.1 (page 19) for capture for carbon capture by new plants using current pulverized-coal technology. From page 48: “Today there are three well-established large scale injection projects with an ambitious scientific program that includes MMV: Sleipner (Norway)22, Weyburn (Canada) 23, and In Salah (Algeria)24. Sleipner began injection of about 1Mt CO2/yr into the Utsira Formation in 1996. This was accompanied by time-lapse reflection seismic volume interpretation (often called 4D-seismic) and the SACS scientific effort. Weyburn is an enhanced oil recovery effort in South Saskatchewan that served as the basis for a four-year, $24 million international research effort. Injection has continued since 2000 at about 0.85 Mt CO2/yr into the Midale reservoir. A new research effort has been announced as the Weyburn Final Phase, with an anticipated budget comparable to the first. The In Salah project takes about 1Mt CO2/yr stripped from the Kretchba natural gas field and injects it into the water leg of the field. None of these projects has detected CO2 leakage of any kind, each appears to have ample injectivity and capacity for project success, operations have been transparent and the results largely open to the public.” From “Putting Coal Back in the Ground,” by the IEA both the Sleipner project and the In Salah project are from from separating CO2 from natural gas. “ An example of a CO2-EOR scheme using anthropogenic CO2 is the Weyburn project in Canada. CO2 captured in a large coal gasification project in North Dakota, USA is to be transported 200 miles by pipeline and injected into the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan. Initially 5 000 tonnes per day of CO2 will be injected.” Schrag pp. 812-8139 FEBRUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org “ Additional questions surround the more expensive part of carbon sequestration, the capture of CO2 from a coal-fired power plant. Conventional pulverized coal plants burn coal in air, producing a low pressure effluent composed of 80% nitrogen, 12% CO2, and 8% water. CO2 can be scrubbed from the nitrogen using amine liquids or other chemicals, and then extracted and compressed for injection into storage locations. This uses energy, roughly 30% of the energy from the coal combustion in the first place (4), and may raise the generating cost of electricity from coal by 50% (5), although these estimates are uncertain given that there is not yet a coal plant that practices carbon sequestration. Pulverized coal plants can also be retrofit to allow for combustion of coal in pure oxygen, although the separation of oxygen from air is similarly energy intensive, and the modifications to the plant would be substantial and likely just as costly (4). “
  • http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 For solar cell production http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm Germany's grid connect PV market grew 16% to 960 Megawatts in 2006 and now accounts for 55% of the world market. While Japan's market size barely advanced last year, Spain and the United States were the strong performers. The Spanish market was up over 200% in 2006, while the US market grew 33%. World solar cell production reached a consolidated figure of 2,204 MW* in 2006, up from 1,656 MW a year earlier. Comparable to Canadian oil sands, synthetic crude of 992kb/d is 66GW thermal
  • Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts, by Sargent and Lundy, 2001. Mirrors are 4-mm thick lead glass. The support structure here is steel, but the new plant in Nevada has aluminum supports. “Experience at Kramer Junction shows that the mirror surface does not experience corrosion as long as they are properly maintained (i.e., cleaned)” page 132.
  • This figure comes from the Schott Glass white paper on Solar Thermal Power Plant Technology http://www.us.schott.com/solarthermal/english/download/schott_white_paper.pdf Aluminum and glass, 250 million dollar cost, 130 million kWh/y. $4/Wnameplate $17/Waverage Solar field is 357,200 square meters, or $700 per square meter For a solar constant of 8kWh/m2/d this gives an efficiency of 12.5% For a 350 acres site. US annual consumption is 12.5EJ
  • http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6166113.html http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/nevada_solar_on.html http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47803 http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47845 http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/gee_solargenix_aps_nevada_projects.pdf http://www.reuk.co.uk/Nevada-Solar-One.htm Consider a solar plant as a carbon-free fuel source for a century Accelerated UV tests on Kramer Junction mirrors indicate a 15% drop in output over 100 years Operations costs at the Kramer Junction plant have been dropping, down from 7 ¢ /kWh in 1992 to 5 ¢ /kWh in 2000 The MIT study allows us to compare coal plants and the new Nevada Solar One From MIT Future of Coal p. 19 Supercritical PC coal plant with capture 243t/500MWh Supercritical pulverized coal plant without CO2 capture is 0.41t/MWh of Illinois bituminous 24Mbtu/t Production is 130GWh e /y for a construction cost of 250 million dollars Compared with a modern coal plant (supercritical pulverized) without carbon capture 4.8Mt coal/century saved  2.9MtC/century avoided for a construction cost of $80/t of carbon avoided For an equivalent coal plant with carbon capture 6.3Mt coal/century saved  0.37MtC/century avoided this coal would form a seam 11 feet thick under the 350 acres of the plant We would need to offset with fossil fuel left in the ground Density of coal is about 1t/m3 from William Jevons 1,770 tons per acre foot, from “Federally Owned Coal and Federal Lands in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region “ published by the USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0011-00/fs-0011-00so.pdf 1 short ton = 0.90718474 metric tons
  • For Immediate Release: 202-208-6416 Public Lands have Abundant Opportunities for Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Sources President Bush’s National Energy Policy laid out a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy WASHINGTON -- Reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy and achieving the goal of secure, affordable and environmentally sound energy will require focused efforts on both the supply and demand side, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Steve Griles today told the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.… The Interior Department manages more than 500 million acres of public land, or one out of every 5 acres of U.S. land. Interior-managed lands account for about 30 percent of America’s domestic energy production, including 48 percent of geothermal production, 35 percent of natural gas production (25 percent offshore and 10 percent onshore), 35 percent of coal production, 35 percent of oil production (30 percent offshore and 5 percent onshore), 20 percent of wind power, and 17 percent of hydropower. …
  • Hubbert's Peak, The Question of Coal and Climate Change

    1. 1. Hubbert’s Peak, The Question of Coal, and Climate Change Dave Rutledge Chair, Division of Engineering and Applied Science Caltech “ There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Mark Twain Life on the Mississippi slides (.ppt) and spreadsheets (.xls) at http://rutledge.caltech.edu/
    2. 2. The UN Panel on Climate Change <ul><li>The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes assessment reports that reflect the consensus on climate change </li></ul><ul><li>The 4 th report is being released this year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Over one thousand authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over one thousand reviewers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Updated measurements show that the temperature is rising 0.013  C per year (1956-2005) </li></ul>
    3. 3. IPCC Climate-Change Predictions <ul><li>Report discusses climate simulations for fossil-fuel carbon-emission scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>There are 40 scenarios, each considered to be equally valid, with story lines and different government policies, population projections, and economic models </li></ul>
    4. 4. The 40 UN IPCC Scenarios <ul><li>Data from the EIA (open symbols, 1980 to 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Emissions have increased 18% since the Kyoto Agreement was negotiated in 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Large differences in emissions among scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>Oil production in 17 of the scenarios is greater in 2100 than in 2005 </li></ul>B1T Message A1C AIM
    5. 5. The Wall Street Journal  April 5  Collapse of the World’s Second-Highest Producing Oil Field <ul><ul><li>World crude-oil production fell in 2006 by roughly the amount of this drop </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Outline <ul><li>The 4 th UN IPCC Assessment Report </li></ul><ul><li>Hubbert’s peak </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The history of US oil production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How much oil do the Saudis have? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world hydrocarbons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Canadian oil sands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The coal question </li></ul><ul><ul><li>British coal, a nearly complete history </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chinese coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world coal, by regions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Climate change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulations of future temperature and sea level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon capture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind and sun </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concluding thoughts </li></ul>
    7. 7. King Hubbert <ul><li>Geophysicist at the Shell lab in Houston </li></ul><ul><li>In 1956, he presented a paper “Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels” at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio </li></ul><ul><li>He made predictions of the peak year of US oil production based on two estimates of the ultimate production </li></ul>
    8. 8. Hubbert’s Peak <ul><li>From his 1956 paper </li></ul><ul><li>Hubbert drew these by hand, and integrated by counting squares </li></ul><ul><li>For the larger estimate, Hubbert predicted a peak in 1970 </li></ul>
    9. 9. What Actually Happened? <ul><li>Data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) </li></ul><ul><li>Production has dropped 15 years in a row </li></ul>Alaskan oil 1970 Hubbert’s Peak
    10. 10. US Crude-Oil Production <ul><li>EIA data (1859-2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Cumulative normal (lms fit for ultimate of 225Gb, mean of 1975, and sd of 28 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Hubbert’s larger ultimate was 200 billion barrels (the Alaska trend is 19 billion barrels) </li></ul>29Gb remaining
    11. 11. The Largest US Oil Field Prudhoe Bay, Alaska Discovered 1968
    12. 12. Prudhoe Bay Oil Production <ul><li>FY1977-2006 data from the Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division </li></ul><ul><li>Initially considered as 8 billion barrels of reserves </li></ul>Trend for ultimate is 12 billion barrels
    13. 13. Estimating Remaining Production from Reserves is Challenging <ul><li>Reserves refer to fossil fuels that are appropriate to produce, taking the price into account </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves may be listed conservatively, as for Prudhoe Bay </li></ul><ul><li>Coal reserves have been too high, and they are often not properly distinguished from resources, which are volume estimates for coal seams of a minimum thickness and a maximum depth </li></ul><ul><li>Often reserves are not adjusted for production </li></ul><ul><li>New discoveries are important for oil and natural gas </li></ul><ul><li>In most countries, the details of oil reserves are secret, and this means that the published reserves are political statements </li></ul>
    14. 14. OPEC Reserves Go Up When the Price Goes Down! <ul><li>Data from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>269Gb rise in reserves, no adjustment for 65Gb produced since 1986 </li></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>Data from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>95Gb rise in reserves, no adjustment for 53Gb of production since 1988 </li></ul>Saudi Reserves Saudi control 264Gb reserves Nehring RAND study 176Gb reserves
    16. 16. Estimating Remaining Production from a Graph <ul><li>In plots of annual production vs cumulative production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We can estimate the remaining production from a trend line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage is that we can identify points on the trend line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage is that we cannot make an estimate until the production drops </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternative is to plot the growth rate of the cumulative production (annual production over cumulative production) instead of the annual production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First applied to Daphnia populations in biology in 1963 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>King Hubbert introduced this approach for estimating remaining oil production in 1982 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage is that we can make an estimate before the peak </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage is that we need to know the cumulative production </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Growth-Rate Plot for US Crude Oil <ul><li>EIA data (cumulative from 1859, open symbols 1900-1930, closed symbols 1931-2006) </li></ul>Trend line is for normal fit (225 billion barrels)
    18. 18. How Much Oil do the Saudis Have? <ul><li>EIA data (open 1975-1990, closed 1991-2006), 1975 cumulative from Richard Nehring </li></ul><ul><li>Matt Simmons was the first to call attention to this anomalous situation in his book, Twilight in the Desert </li></ul>Trend line is for 1978 RAND study (90Gb remaining) Official Saudi reserves are 264 billion barrels
    19. 19. Growth-Rate Plot for World Hydrocarbons <ul><li>Oil + natural gas + natural gas liquids like propane and butane </li></ul><ul><li>Data 1965, 1972, 1981, 2006 BP Statistical Review (open 1960-1982, closed 1983-2005) </li></ul><ul><li>The German resources agency BGR gives hydrocarbon reserves as 2.7Tboe </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expectation of future discoveries and future OPEC oil reserve reductions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes 500Gboe for non-conventional sources like Canadian oil sands </li></ul></ul>Trend line for 3Tboe remaining
    20. 20. World Hydrocarbon Production <ul><li>Cumulative normal (ultimate 4.6Tboe, lms fit for mean 2018, sd 35 years) </li></ul><ul><li>IPCC scenarios assume that 11 to 15Tboe is available </li></ul>3Tboe remaining
    21. 21. Fort McMurray, Alberta Oil Sands
    22. 22. Canadian Oil Sands <ul><li>1.0 Mb per day in 2005, increasing 8% per year </li></ul><ul><li>35Gb reserves for mining (comparable to one year of world oil production) </li></ul><ul><li>140Gb reserves for wells </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production with a steam process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Production and upgrading to synthetic crude oil use 25% of the oil energy equivalent in natural gas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Canadian gas reserves are 10Gboe (end of 2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual gas production is 12% of reserves per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenges in meeting obligations under the Kyoto agreement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Group were the first to call attention to these limitations </li></ul>
    23. 23. Outline <ul><li>The 4 th UN IPCC Assessment Report </li></ul><ul><li>Hubbert’s peak </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The history of US oil production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How much oil do the Saudis have? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world hydrocarbons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Canadian oil sands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The coal question </li></ul><ul><ul><li>British coal, a nearly complete history </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chinese coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world coal, by regions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Climate change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulations of future temperature and sea level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon capture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind and sun </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concluding thoughts </li></ul>
    24. 24. British Coal
    25. 25. British Coal Production <ul><li>Data from the US National Bureau of Economic Research (1854-1876), the Durham Coal Mining Museum (1877-1956), and the British Department of Trade and Industry (1957-2006) </li></ul><ul><li>In the peak production year, 1913, there were 3,024 mines </li></ul>
    26. 26. Growth-Rate Plot for British Coal <ul><li>1854-2006, 1853 cumulative from William Jevons, The Coal Question </li></ul><ul><li>Already near the trend line in 1854 </li></ul>
    27. 27. Remaining Production for British Coal <ul><li>Data from the UK Department of Trade and Industry (1993-2006) </li></ul><ul><li>6 producing underground mines  several with less than ten years of coal </li></ul><ul><li>35 strip mines are producing, but there are difficulties in getting permits for new mines </li></ul>10% per year Trend line for 200Mt remaining
    28. 28. Cumulative British Coal Production <ul><li>Pre-war lms fit (1854-1945, ultimate 25.6Gt, mean 1920, sd 41 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-war lms fit (1946-2006, ultimate 27.2Gt, mean 1927, sd 39 years) </li></ul>Pre-war fit Post-war fit
    29. 29. Reserves-to-Production Ratio for UK Coal <ul><li>1864 reserves from Edward Hull of the Geological Survey </li></ul><ul><li>Other data from the World Energy Council Surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Current R/P ratio is 7 years </li></ul>
    30. 30. Reserves vs Remaining Production <ul><li>1864 reserves from Edward Hull of the Geological Survey </li></ul><ul><li>Other data from the World Energy Council Surveys of Energy Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Resources include seams of 2ft or more at depths of 4000ft or less </li></ul>Reserves Remaining Production Resources + Reserves Hull
    31. 31. Fraction of Reserves Eventually Produced <ul><li>1864 reserves from Edward Hull of the Geological Survey </li></ul><ul><li>Other data from the World Energy Council Surveys of Energy Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Will use trends if they exist, reserves otherwise </li></ul>Hull Hull
    32. 32. Why Are Coal Reserves Too High? <ul><li>It seems likely that there are many social, environmental, and technical hindrances that are not fully taken into account in the reserve estimates </li></ul><ul><li>The German Energy Watch Group was early in pointing out that there is a problem with reserves worldwide </li></ul><ul><li>Here are some technical restrictions from the USGS 2000 National Coal Assessment for the Illinois basin </li></ul>
    33. 33. Production and Reserves <ul><li>2005 Production numbers from the BP 2006 Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the World Energy Council surveys of resources (2006/2007 South Africa Yearbook for South Africa, and the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources 2001 by way of Sandro Schmidt at the BGR) </li></ul>29 0.26 South Africa 963 6.20 World 79 0.37 Australia 92 0.45 India 0.31 1.05 2.38 Production, Gt 189 China 157 Russia 247 Reserves, Gt USA
    34. 34. Chinese Coal
    35. 35. Growth-Rate Plot for China <ul><li>Data from Tim Wright, D.W. Dwyer, and BP 2006 Statistical Review (cumulative from 1896, open symbols 1918-1961, closed symbols 1962-2005), corrections by Jianjun Tu </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources 2001 by way of Sandro Schmidt at the BGR </li></ul>Trend line for 70Gt remaining Reserves are 189Gt
    36. 36. Cumulative Production for China <ul><li>Cumulative normal (ultimate 111Gt, lms fit for mean 2015 and sd 27 years) </li></ul>
    37. 37. American Coal
    38. 38. US Coal Production <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) </li></ul><ul><li>Will consider the East and the West separately </li></ul>West of the Mississippi Total
    39. 39. Anthracite in Pennsylvania <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) </li></ul><ul><li>Anthracite is a grade of coal used for home heating that burns with little smoke </li></ul>
    40. 40. Growth-Rate Plot for PA Anthracite <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) cumulative from 1800, symbols 1875-1995 </li></ul><ul><li>16% of the 1913 reserves have been produced </li></ul>
    41. 41. Cumulative PA Anthracite Production <ul><li>Normal lms fit for ultimate 5.00Gt, mean 1916, and sd 27 years </li></ul>
    42. 42. Bituminous Coal in Virginia <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) and the EIA </li></ul><ul><li>Virginia has coal with high energy content, and much of it is used for metallurgy </li></ul>
    43. 43. Growth-Rate Plot for VA Bituminous <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) cumulative from 1800, closed 1900-1940, open 1941-1945, closed 1946-2006, reserves from the EIA </li></ul><ul><li>Trend is for 16% of the 1924 reserves to eventually be produced </li></ul>Trend is for 800Mt remaining Reserves are 2.8Gt Pre-war Trend WWII
    44. 44. Cumulative VA Bituminous Production <ul><li>Pre-war normal (ultimate 0.40Gt, lms fit for mean 1926 and sd 16 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-war normal (ultimate 3.03Gt, lms fit for mean 1984 and sd 34 years) </li></ul>Pre-war fit Post-war fit
    45. 45. Coal East of the Mississippi <ul><li>Does not include Pennsylvania anthracite </li></ul><ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) cumulative from 1800, closed 1900-1940, open 1941-1948, closed 1949-2005, reserves from the EIA </li></ul>Trend is for 40Gt remaining Reserves are 96Gt Pre-war Trend WWII
    46. 46. Cumulative Production for the East <ul><li>Does not include Pennsylvania anthracite </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-war normal (ultimate 20Gt, lms fit for mean 1924 and sd 20 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-war normal (ultimate 86Gt, lms fit for mean 1999 and sd 67 years) </li></ul>Post-war fit Pre-war fit
    47. 47. Western Coal
    48. 48. Coal West of the Mississippi <ul><li>Data from the USGS (Robert Milici) closed 1800-1970, open 1971-1978, closed 1979-2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the EIA </li></ul><ul><li>Montana is the state with the largest reserves, 68Gt, but annual production is only 36Mt </li></ul>Trend is for 25Gt remaining Reserves are 79Gt without Montana Pre-70’s trend
    49. 49. Cumulative Production for the West <ul><li>Pre-70’s normal (ultimate 1.6Gt, lms fit for mean 1929 and sd 23 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-70’s normal (ultimate 38Gt, lms fit for mean 2016 and sd 25 years) </li></ul>Pre-70’s fit Post-70’s fit
    50. 50. Growth-Rate Plot for Australia and New Zealand <ul><li>Data (1981-2005) from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>1990 Australia cumulative from the History of Coal Mining in Australia , A.J. Hargraves </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the 2004 World Energy Council survey </li></ul>Trend line for 50Gt remaining Reserves are 79Gt
    51. 51. Growth-Rate Plot for Europe <ul><li>Data (1981-2005) from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>2005 cumulative from the 2005 BGR Energy Resources Report </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the 2004 World Energy Council survey, down from 171Gt in 1990 </li></ul>Trend line for 23Gt remaining Reserves are 55Gt
    52. 52. Growth-Rate Plot for Africa <ul><li>Data (open 1981-1990, closed 1991-2005) from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>2005 cumulative from the 2005 BGR Energy Resources Report </li></ul><ul><li>South African reserves were recently reduced by 20Gt (2006/2007 South Africa Yearbook) </li></ul>Trend line for 10Gt remaining Reserves are 30Gt
    53. 53. Former Soviet Union <ul><li>Data from BP (closed 1981-1988, open 1989-2005) </li></ul><ul><li>2005 cumulative from the 2005 BGR Energy Resources Report </li></ul><ul><li>Drop that started in 1989 is from the collapse of the Soviet Union </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from World Energy Council surveys, unchanged since the collapse of the Soviet Union </li></ul>Trend line for 18Gt remaining 1996 reserves are 157Gt
    54. 54. Growth-Rate Plot for South Asia <ul><li>Data (1965-2005) from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>Earlier production from World Energy Council Surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the 2004 World Energy Council survey </li></ul>Exponential Growth Reserves are 111Gt
    55. 55. Growth-Rate Plot for Central and South America <ul><li>Data (1981-2005) from the 2006 BP Statistical Review </li></ul><ul><li>2005 Cumulative from the BGR Resources Report </li></ul><ul><li>Reserves from the 2004 World Energy Council survey </li></ul>Exponential Growth Reserves are 20Gt
    56. 56. Reserves vs Trends for Remaining Production <ul><li>North America includes trends for the East (40Gt), the West (25Gt), reserves for Montana (68Gt), and trends for Canada and Mexico (2Gt) </li></ul><ul><li>IPCC scenarios assume 18Tboe is available for production </li></ul>111 South Asia 20 Central and South America 135 255 North America 50 79 Australia and New Zealand 18 10 23 55 Europe 30 Africa 223 Former Soviet Union 70 190 East Asia 437 (1.6Tboe) Trends Gt 963 (3.5Tboe) Reserves Gt World (at 3.6boe/t) Region
    57. 57. Future Fossil-Fuels Production <ul><li>Hydrocarbons cumulative normal (ultimate 4.6Tboe, lms fit for mean 2018, sd 35 years) </li></ul><ul><li>2005 coal cumulative from the 2005 BGR Energy Resources Report (USGS for US) </li></ul><ul><li>Coal cumulative normal (ultimate 2.6Tboe, lms fit for mean 2024, sd 48 years) </li></ul><ul><li>The standard deviations of 35 and 48 years can be compared to time constants for temperature and sea level </li></ul>1.6Tboe coal remaining 3.0Tboe hydrocarbons remaining
    58. 58. Outline <ul><li>The 4 th UN IPCC Assessment Report </li></ul><ul><li>Hubbert’s peak </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The history of US oil production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How much oil do the Saudis have? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world hydrocarbons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Canadian oil sands </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The coal question </li></ul><ul><ul><li>British coal, a nearly complete history </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chinese coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The future of world coal, by regions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Climate change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulations of future temperature and sea level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon capture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind and sun </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concluding thoughts </li></ul>
    59. 59. Fossil-Fuel Carbon Emissions <ul><li>Total fossil-fuel carbon is an input for climate-change models </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon coefficients from the EIA: oil (110kg/boe), gas (79kg/boe), coal (141kg/boe), and future hydrocarbons weighted by BGR reserves (98kg/boe) </li></ul><ul><li>The Super-Kyoto Profile is a 50% stretch-out in time with the same ultimate production </li></ul>520Gt remaining Producer-Limited Profile Super-Kyoto Profile
    60. 60. Comparing with the IPCC Scenarios <ul><li>Our Producer-Limited profile has lower emissions than any of the 40 IPCC scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>Jean Laherrere was the first to point out this anomalous situation </li></ul>Producer-Limited Profile
    61. 61. Simulated CO 2 Levels <ul><li>Predictions using the program MAGICC from Tom Wigley at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder with a modified WRE profile </li></ul><ul><li>The Producer-Limited Profile gives a peak CO 2 concentration of 460ppm in 2070 </li></ul><ul><li>The Super-Kyoto Profile gives a 440ppm peak </li></ul>
    62. 62. Temperature Rises Associated with Future Fossil-Fuel Use <ul><li>Predictions from Tom Wigley’s MAGICC (no mechanical ice model) </li></ul><ul><li>The temperature rise is a maximum of 0.8  C in 2100 </li></ul><ul><li>The Super-Kyoto Profile (dashed lines) reduces the maxima by 0.04  C </li></ul><ul><li>Time constant is of the order of a thousand years (an integrator) </li></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity to errors is 0.0012  C/Gt carbon </li></ul>
    63. 63. CO 2 Capture and Storage for Coal Power Plants <ul><li>MIT has just completed an outstanding study, The Future of Coal , that gives a cost of $150/t of carbon avoided </li></ul><ul><li>To reduce the temperature in 2100 by 0.001  C, the cost would be 100 billion dollars </li></ul><ul><li>Additional cost for transportation and burial </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A distribution system is needed that is comparable to our present natural gas pipeline system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot have leaks on the time scale of a thousand years </li></ul></ul>
    64. 64. Wind and Sun <ul><li>The time constants of around 50 years for fossil-fuel exhaustion imply that a transition to renewable sources of energy is likely </li></ul><ul><li>Wind is the fastest growing renewable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Current world capacity is 74GW, increasing at 25% per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>19% of new US capacity last year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage is a production learning curve </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solar photovoltaics for the home and business </li></ul><ul><ul><li>World production in 2006 was 2.2GW, up 33% from 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage is that there is no need for new transmission lines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Caltech is installing a 230-kW plant on top of a parking structure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concentrating solar </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Current capacity is 350MW, built in the 80s in the Mojave Desert </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New Nevada Solar One with 64MW near Las Vegas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advantages are that it uses the direct sunlight available in the Southwest, and the possibility of thermal storage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The major California utilities, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Pacific Gas and Electric, are each planning to spend a billion dollars on concentrating solar plants </li></ul></ul>
    65. 65. Kramer Junction, California
    66. 66. <ul><li>From Schott Glass </li></ul><ul><li>Area in red circle in California could supply sufficient energy to replace the entire US grid </li></ul>
    67. 67. Nevada Solar One June 2, 2007
    68. 68. Concluding Thoughts <ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimate for future hydrocarbon production (3Tboe) is consistent with reserves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimate for future coal production (1.6Tboe) is about half of reserves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The time constants for fossil-fuel exhaustion are of the order of 50 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The time constant for temperature is of the order of 1,000 years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Since estimate for future fossil-fuel production is less than all 40 UN IPCC scenarios, producer limitations could provide useful constraints in climate modeling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A transition to renewable sources of energy is likely </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To lessen the effects of climate change associated with future fossil-fuel use, reducing ultimate production is more important than slowing it down </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opportunities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One-third of US fossil-fuel reserves are on federal lands, so ultimate production could be reduced substantially by limits on new leases for mining and drilling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The US has an outstanding resource in its direct sunlight </li></ul></ul>
    69. 69. Thanks for Advice, Criticism, Discussion, and Slides <ul><li>Tom Wigley and Steve Smith at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder </li></ul><ul><li>Bill Bridges, Dave Goodstein, Melany Hunt, John Ledyard, Ken Pickar, Tapio Schneider, John Seinfeld, and Tom Tombrello at Caltech </li></ul><ul><li>Dimitri Antsos at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory </li></ul><ul><li>John Rutledge at Freese and Nichols, Inc. in Fort Worth </li></ul><ul><li>Charlie Kennel at the University of California at San Diego </li></ul><ul><li>Sandro Schmidt at the BGR </li></ul><ul><li>Juha Karhu at the University of Helsinki </li></ul>Special thanks to Sandy Garstang in the Caltech Library and Dale Yee in the Caltech Engineering Division for their ingenuity in locating mining records

    ×