End of fossil fuel

Stop staring, read on!

The world is slowly becoming aware of the imensity of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Below an image from the NYT. It shows you the extend ot the surface oil spill at the moment, it is probably not counting the reported oil bubbles flowating in the deap ocean. The so called 'dispergeants' have caused oil to concentrate below the surface.Let's use this opporutnity to create some perspective of the oil we don't see when it is being spilled, namely the oil we burn.

Let's broaden the picture a little bit. We may see the black oil spilled, but we spill oil in the atmosphere every day. How would that compare? World oil consumption is 84,158.559 barrels per day, this is 3.592.428.000 gallons or 54 times as much as has been spilled in the gulf up until now. Lets first visualize the spill as a square for simplicity.

The spill until now amounts to  1.8% of daily consumption. What if all consumption was spilled? You get the below image. Nearly all the Gulf of Mexico would be covered. And that is just for one day! What if we take on eyear consumption?

The Gulf of Mexico spans about 1,6 million square kilometers (I'm European sorry). Let's say the above picture was a bit rough in its estimate, so we say 1 million square kilometers could be covered by our daily oil consumption. The worlds oceans comprise of 361 million square kilometers. This means one year oil consumption if spilled would cover the entire surface of all the earths oceans.

For 'The Solution' click here.

Clean Development Mechanism

Under the clean development mechanism (based on the Kyoto Protocol) projects and industries have to buy or be allocted rights to emit carbon dioxide. The concept is based on the cap and trade of other pollutants, that have been widely succesful. There is only one problem with the approach. It is not cap and trade.

What is Cap and Trade?

Cap and trade is a system where you limit the amount of pollution emitted (the cap), and you encourage participants inthe system to trade emission rights if they either fall below or move above their allowed emission quota. Every year the cap is revised downwards, so that overall all participants in the system emit less of the polutant. It compares possible alternatives in the allocation of the quotum, and thus both penalizes a more polluting solution and incentivices the less polluting ones.

The intended effect of cap and trade

Why keep Clean Energy Projects Out?

If you allow clean energy projects like solar, wave, geothermal and wind to apply for emission rights you make the cap and trade system ineffective. These projects are seen as emission reductions (156,026 tons for the project linked to above). First of all, clean energy projects do not emit significant amounts of pollutants, so there is no logical reason to include them. How can you have a emissions reduction if you do not have emissions in the first place? Second of all, allocating emission rights to these projects cancels out the effect of the cap and trade system. Third of all, it drives the cost of alternative energy projects up, and slows them down, because initiators will have/want to await the emission rights allocation process. It also ties the banking system into the loop, which is why the financial and industry lobbies have fought for this way of implementing the system.

How does this NOT work?

If a clean energy project comes onstream it applies for carbon credits under the CDM system. Say a solar plant calims it prevents emission of 1000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. It recieves 1000  carbon tons of EUA units (the tradable equivalent of a ton of emissions rights. It then sells those rights to a polluter, and makes itself economically viable in the process. Win win no? NO! Effectivly the NET amount of carbon emissions is not reduced, eventhough a perfectly clean power plant has come onstream. Our ecosystem suffers under the NET amount of carbon emitted, it does not give one flying fuck about how many clean projects come onstream! Another effect is that as more clean projects come onstream, the cost of one ton of emission rights will be reduced, further weakening the incentives for the polluting industry to change.In this news report the problem is higlighted from an industries perspective. Inclusion of forest as carbon sinks doesn't work to curb carbon emissions!

The NET effect is NO NET EFFECT!

So what should be done?

In the new Kyoto the emissions trade should only be allowed between parties that significantly emit when they apply. No loopholes should be allowed for clean projects that create no carbon emissions. Only this way there will be an effective incentive to move towards cleaner technologies, which are abundantly available, and will become more viable as people start to wake up to the risks and costs of using fossil fuels.

An effective alternative ?

The polluters have to pay an increasing percentage over their carbon emissions that will be used to implement comparable clean alternatives. This will stongly incentivise the industries themselves to develop alternatives. 

For years the US has had a strong advantage on the world stage: Oil was being sold in dollars. This meant that a dollar always had value relative to that of a barrel of oil. It meant the US could always buy oil (because the US can print dollars), and it meant there was a reliable demand for dollars from countries wanting to buy oil. This ear is about to end. 

Demise of the PetroDollar

In his article by this name of october 6th, Rober Fisk outlines plans of Arab states together with Russia, China and France to stop using the dollar in oil trades. Of course oil has no set currency it is tied to, it could be sold for pancakes if that happened to be the Arabs preference. In recent decades however the Arabs had been forced to sell oil in dollars, under threat of war.It is widely believed that the Iraq war as well as the current threat to Iran has been motivated by the stated intention of both Saddam and Ahmadinejad. The CIA and oil where linked in the movie Syriania.

Economic warfare

Truth is that the US has stolen most oil from the Arabs, just like the UK in the beginning of this century. Britisch Petroleum used to be called the Anglo Persian Oil Company until real oil was found in Iran, and its strategic advantage in warfare became apparent. More recently it has been outlined the IMF (which is largely controlled by New York banks and the US government) at a certain point won the right to manage the huge oil profits of the arabs, and then managed to lose their stored wealth (thus removing the burden to pay in real terms). More recently it came to light that the US only payed interest on a loan to supply the oil it bought. Interest payed with unbacked dollars.

China's rise

Now the tide is against the US. It is in al its competitors and adversaries interest to reduce the abilit of the US to get oil, and through that ability to project power. China is making deals with countries like Iran and Nigeria to secure its energy needs, and in contrast with the US, China can deliver something for those deals. If you sell oil for Yuan you know you can get stuff made in China. It however is not only China, it is a raft of other developing countries that with proper guidance have slipped from under the dumb of the IMF.The whole world is happy to make their own trades without involving the dollar, and the consequences will be dire for the US.

The Mad Max Scenario

Without a Petrodollar the US dollar will fade away. This view was recently ventilated by te analyst Jim Willie ,as a logical result of the broken dollar oil bond. As a direct result the US will not be able to buy oil. The US even lacks the manufacturing capacity to export in order to earn other currencies to buy oil. If the US had factories it still would not be able to power them without oil. Also the risks of disruption of the food supply, food aid to the US and full scale desintegration are real threats.

Without the right shift in policies the US could quickly descend into Mad Max territory. If it has time to shift to alternative energy it may develop the autonomous power to prosper in a better world. Some say a war would bring benefits, but they do not know the economic reality in the US during Wo II, they only remember the prosperity as a result of increased manufacturing capacity free for all purposes after the war. What would help would be the introduction of a 'war economy'. This is what Japan did even after WO II. It invloved some central planning, and basically non commercial production of necessary goods. That would be a brilliant idea applied to alternative energy both from a strategic standpoint and from an environmental perspective.

Oil Wars or a Renaissance

For the biggest carbon pollutor in the world the choice is between war and a renaissance. The latter would mean a rapid adoption of known alternative energy technologies to prop up economically essential activities. The crisis that is developing can be turned into the biggest boon for humanity. The important realization that wealth is experienced because work is done by energy, and that energy does not need to be fossil. Such renaissance would immediately lead to dirt cheap energy for other countries, perhaps even elliminating the appetite for the black juice altogether.  

Solar Creation

If you look into the origins of anything in our universe, you will learn about the role of the stars in creating all the elements. In our case the Sun has been recognized thoughout the ages as the source of everything, makeing it one of the oldes mythological gods worshiped in every culture under the name like Ra, Apollo, Garuda, Utu. Indeed, the obelisk in St. Peters square in the Vatican is of egyptian origin, once erected in Heliopolis as a tribute to the sun god Ra (it is 3844 years old). But the sun's creative power is no myth. The sun mainly fuses Hydrogen into Helium, but every other element is more or less a result of fusion and fission of other elements in a star like our sun. Similarly everything you see around you is created because of the sun. Earth itself formed from dust in space because of the sun. Life evolved due to the sun. Al organic food grows due to the sun, and most fossil fuel is stored solar energy. This close bond with our star should be a reassuring one, because the sun has plenty of fuel for several billion years..

All elements formed in stars like our sun

Everything From the Sun

Because our current world is a solar creation it makes sense to assume it can be perpetuated on solar power alone. Even though we have used up 'solar credit' by burning stored solar energy (oil, gas and coal), there is no reason why the sun could not sustain our current needs. Simple math tells us the sun can do that quite easily. A good question however is how? How would that work?

Replacing Fossil Sources

Let's look at that question seriously for a second. What do we need? Maybe we should ask: what do we need we now get out of oil. We get water, electricity, fuel for heating and transportation (do we need it?) and fertilizer (made out of oil)

Water

Water is a basic need. In cases where rain or melting water does not provide enough, to far away from any sea or mountain, water can be pumped up, but only for a limited time. Desalination with solar thermal power is simple and cheap, although for some reason usually expensive methods are presented. As solar concentration requirements lead to cheaper sources of mirrors and concentrator designs solar desalination cost will coome down. The open desalination models should also not be discounted (where water is evaporated into the open air). Another apporach is the use of inland evaporative seas. With plentyfull sunshine there is no need to fret for water.

Source: Acquasol

Electricity

Electricity is a simple one. Electricitical energy is a hugely versatile form of energy. To make it using sunlight one can use photovoltaics, which is expensive (and energy intensive). Simpler and more efficient is to concentrate solar energy and use a steam turbine to generate lectricity. There are scores of ways to turn heat into electrical energy (so called heat engines).

Bron: Sandia

Fuel

Fuel is somethin you can burn. Burning is a proces, usually of oxidiziation, which means the molecules of the fuel are reacting exothermicaly (generating heat) with oxygen. Coal, gas (methane), oil. methanol, ethanol, ammonia are fuels, biomass can be fuel and these have a solar-organic origin.

If you want to replace fossil oil by growing it today (using effectively the same organisms) you could in part. You could use the same process that made the oil and coal, which is growing small organisms in the oceans and swamps (powered by the sun), and wait a while.  Spicing up the technology could generate many tons of (edible) oil at competitive price (oil needs to be above ~$80 (2008 dollars).

Another way to make a fuel, methane is the Sabatier reaction. This reaction converts CO2 amd Hydrogen directly into Methane and water. It requires heat, which can be solar in origin. The drawback of this process is that it creates a carbon fuel and a greenhouse gas, a gas that (by the way) is bubbling up from the Arctic seabed in distubing quantities as it is. Eveything that rots produces methane.

Then there is Ammonia. This is a serious candidate. You can make it using the sun by the Haber Bosch process. Nitrogen (the most abundant gas) and Hydrogen are combined using heat. Ammonia is presently known as fertilizer and because it is the smelly stuff in manure. Ammonia burns 100% carbon free (there is no carbon in ammonia). It does create slight amounts of nitrous oxide, but can also be used in fuel cells where that type of emission can be controlled.

Fertilizer and Solar Hydrogen Generation

As shown above, ammonia can be made from hydrogen. Ammonia is fertilizer, coomonly made from oil. A logical question now is that of Hydrogen. Where will that come from? It is quite easy to make actually, just stick some dc wires in water mixed with a little salt, and the negative wire will instantly start bubbling hydrogen. But there is a direct route from the sun to hydrogen, this is though a process called thermal hydrolysis. Water is mixed with zink at high temperatures (1800 Celcius). The zink extracts the oxygen, leaving only hydrogen. Then the oxidized zink is recuperated in another step of the porcess. This way the H20 is split into H2 and O2 without creating a dangerous mix of these two gasses. This process is being developped, and would allow the whole chain from H2 to ammonia and methane to be solar. In other words: Everything from the sun.

  1.rotating cavity lined with sintered ZnO tiles, 2. 80%Al2O3-20%SiO2 insulation, 3. 95%Al2O3-5%Y2O3 CMC, 4. alumina fibres, 5. Al reactor shell, 6. aperture, 7. quartz window, 8. dynamic feeder,9. front cone, 10. rotary joint, 11. chain wheel. More here.

Closed Circle

With the process for solar hydrogen generation every essential requirement of our high flying society can be met directly with solar power. Oil and Coal can be retired, and the only reason that is not happening is because there is an Oil and Coal industry that still offers its fuels at a price that does not include the cost of the environmental damage from its use. Also Oil is allowed to lobby against anything it deems a threath. Instead of assuming political naivite on should take a more protective stance and assume corruption. Only by calling oil head on on its devestating effects can we hope to see the sun reign once more.

Our athmosphere is like a swimming pool, CO2 is like ink. Do you know how to get all the ink back out from the side of the swimming pool once you dropper it in?

The world is watching and squabeling about how to deal with climate change, who wins and who loses, who has to cut back. But the real culprit, the buring of fossil fuels, is not being hampered in the least. This is because the western world is still struggling in the banker created artificial competitive financial environment, a bogus creation of stealthy oligargs. It is like people struggling to put their finger in the dam while the water is gushing though a big hole right next to the one they are sticking their finger in.

Stuggling Fossil Industry, Die!

"Oil is aplenty, it just needs more investment." this means the cost will go up. This means it is not aplenty. Tar sands (using expensive steam extraction) and underground burning of coal are proposed to get to every last puff drop and grain of fossil fuel. The public is asked to make the effort while it could also put their labour into the alternatives. The reason there seem to be multiple options is because the bottom line decision can not be made by our leaders : to discourage using fossil fuel wherever there is an alternative, Yes, through a carbon tax for instance.

Industrial Opportunity

It is just dumbness really that drives the resistance against reduction of fossil fuel. Industrial energy use is for a very large part the use of either Heat or Cold. Both are freely available during the day and the night, with a little help of technology. Heat Pumps are funny machines that in a way multiply the energy you put into them. They can operate using solar energy, pump solar heat up to phenominal temperatures, and the other way around. New technologies are pulled out of the mothballs (bacause most of them where developed during the eighties) and the sooned they are adoped the better.

Click image to learn more

One Way Legislation

The laws should say that when a company needs a certain cooling or heating or compressed air or drive mechanism, it has to go though a decision proces first eliminating fossil options, then electrical (which can be sources cleanly, but is wastefull in a centralized fashion) options. All things being equal fossil application should be disallowed. Now the velvet glove is being used with the scare taktic 'it will be bad for the economy' hiding the fact that politicians are bought to keep the status quo going, no change is the cheapest option if you don't care where you will end up. That is not very democratic towards the younger generation. One problem it creats is lack of investment (without subsidized returns, subsidy are always considered necessary and fantastic when they arrive, but in fact they are a tax to pay reluctant workers). If banks don't dare to invest in solar with a guaranteed return and payback term they should be forced to do so, or the government should take that gamble. What would be the reason why a bank would not invest in something with a guaranteed return? 

The myth of carbon capture and storage
The capture and storage of carbon emmissions is another technology that needs to be put in its proper perspective relative to the alternatives.

Carbon capture means the removal and compression of CO2 from the outflow of the burning coal power plants. This proces requires energy, thus reducing the output of the power plants. It is often stated that if one captures carbon in this way it makes only sense if the captured carbon has value. What this means is that the emmision reduction (in terms of emmision rights saved) will simply be sold and realized somewhere else by other pollutors.

Coal is to expensive

Unless carbon capture and storage is payed for entirely by the increased price of the power generated it does not reduce total carbon emissions. This puts the coal burning power plants at a serious disadvantage to for instance solar thermoelectric power plants that can be build today and have no emissions.

The recent drop in oil prices must have caused a sigh of relief with the makers of the documentary below. However, the Black industry sees itself as viable for some time to come, at a price. Canada would have lost its single largest emitter of greenhouse gasses if it did not have an oil sand industry. It is complete insanity of unnecessary pollution, poisoning (will be mentioned in a future article), forest destruction and water waste with very little to show for it. Look at these videos and wonder how this method of energy production compares to f.i.

The end of Shell?

Jeroen van der Veer (Shell) telling us fossil fuel is no longer viable. 'Ít is there, but we need massive kapital investment to get it out'. Still, Shell wants our trust to do just that. 'We will need energy, and all sources of energy incurr a cost on the environment'. So Mr. van der Veer wants to keep Shells workers bussy, and this inertia will only increase as the profitability of fossil fuels diminishes in the coming years. Shell should face the reality that its business model will stop working, and use its huge resources to become the primary (alternative) power supplier for the future. One could also hypothesize that oil companies are not really free to decide what they do as long as the serve geopolitical strategic interests.