NationStates Jolt Archive

I read an interesting book titled that by Harper's Magazine columnist Paul Roberts. When I first saw it, my stomach did a sommersault. And if you have a job at a big oil firm, you may too. You are the agriculture sector of tommarow: a dying industry with huge gluts and few employees.
The truth is we may be running out of oil. However, that doesn't mean we can't run cars, and continue our current lifestyles. Indeed, Western lifestyle may be a reality to the rest of the world in a few decades, because the energy economy isn't at an end. It is in the beginning stages of change.
Research for hydrogen fuel cells has come a long way in even the past five years, and is most likely to be a popular energy source at some point. However, that'll take a few decades of research. In the mean time, we need a bridge, one called natural gas.
Natural gas may replace oil as the world's fuel of choice by 2025. It burns hotter, and can be used to make synthetic gasoline for only a little more than real gas production. It is also much cleaner. Gas is rising in popularity around the world, but in areas like the US and Japan, which are isolated from fields, it can't be transported easily. Luckily, there are plans for up to 18 LNG terminals to be built in Baja California, and a few more on the US west coast. With such advantages, natural gas will soon see widespread use in the US.
Yet even this is temporary, as reserves should run out by 2050. However, by then, a hydrogen economy should be viable, and so will microgrids. While centralized power in some form will always exist, in a hydrogen economy, every home has the chance to be a powerplant and a gas station, taking the wind out of not just oil firms, but perhaps electrical firms as well.
In the mean time, however, coal can still be a moneymaker. About 75% of eletrical production comes from coal, as it is extremely cheap and very plentiful. Yet they are dirty, and highly inefficient. 70% of coal's energy is lost in smoke, even though some newer power plants waste significantly less. However, there is a way that makes coal not only survive, but thrive in a hydrogen economy. Intergrated Gassification Combined Cycle plants, or IGCC, will produce highly versatile coal gas. It can be separated into pure hydrogen, and even help create synthetic gasoline.
Carbon capture technology is also promising. It is expensive, and takes 20% of a coal plant's current electrical generation. However, I believe that the more efficient plants of today can offset this hurtle, and electricity from those plants can still be as cheap as today. Further, CO2 has uses. I envision, for example, a pipeline from the East Coast to the Gulf of Mexico and Central America, where CO2 will be sequestered in oil wells. Even when an oil economy still exists, according to National Geographic's February 2004 issue, CO2 increases the production of wells.
This is an oversimplifyed version of the book I read, and if you want to know more, I recommend reading it. I hope, however, this clears the air on my position. Below is a bibliography on this book, in case anyone wants to read it.

Roberts, Paul. The End of Oil: on the Edge of a Perilous New World. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

In Alaska there is a oil well the size of South Carolina, but the eco-nuts won't let it be drilled.

In Alaska there is a oil well the size of South Carolina, but the eco-nuts won't let it be drilled.


Not enough, thats less then decades worth of world use.

Not enough, thats less then decades worth of world use.
In any case, this new economy is more economic in the long term, as energy isn't as big of a concern among consumers. And hopefully, reliability will be far better with the creation of microgrids.

Bump.

Not enough, thats less then decades worth of world use.

But enough for America, who cares about everyone else.

But enough for America, who cares about everyone else.


Why is the game "fallout" coming to mind...

In Alaska there is a oil well the size of South Carolina, but the eco-nuts won't let it be drilled.

I bet you wouldnt be saying that if you lioved in alaska and someone was going to drill in your back yard.

But enough for America, who cares about everyone else.
In the next decade, however, drilling in Alaska might not even be necessary. If oil was less in demand, as natural gas will start to replace its role in a decade, will investors be happy that they didn't see a significant return on the new refineries and wells?

I bet you wouldnt be saying that if you lioved in alaska and someone was going to drill in your back yard.
Actually, the main advocate for this are the two senators from alaska. Besides, most Alaskans love this idea. It's not in anyone's backyard, anyhow. The nearest town from ANWR is about a hundred miles away in any direction.

bump

I love bumping, so bump again.

I have another point to add. The book stated that there'll probably be change in the coal industry. However, they don't want to change, as it may destroy their businesses, and such fears are understandable. Ironically enough, they'll probably lobby hard for the feds to impose nation wide standards, as their bigger markets in California, New York, and other states, have imposed confusing and contradictary standards. It's also possible that they want consistency with their European competitors, because coal is starting to regain some of its luster there under Kyoto, as it demands for "clean coal".
However, despite what I could detect about this author's politics (slightly left of center), he said that the US would certainly be hurt under Kyoto, and Europe knows it. It's primarily because the US economy has historically grown quicker, and such a restrictive measure would cost us 3% of our GDP anually, compared to under 2% of Europe's.
His suggestion is a unilateral environmental policy, perhaps one that decreases energy intensity, or how much energy is needed to make a dollar. It peaked in 1920 within the US, and is naturally going down at 2% a year. Indeed, if we all had refridgerators made in the seventies, fourty new coal power plants would need to be built. Despite this progress, we can do more. If the US mandated that energy intensity is lowered by 3% a year, it's in the realm of possibility that US CO2 emissions could peak around 2040, and decline afterwards.