Aled Dilwyn Fisher’s Blog

If we do not do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable

‘Energy Beyond Oil’ by Paul Mobbs – Could YOU Cut YOUR Energy by 60%?

Posted by Aled Dilwyn Fisher on June 21, 2008

I mentioned in my previous post about coal (and how the Tories haven’t got a clue about it!) Paul Mobbs and his excellent book Energy Beyond Oil. I highly recommend this book to everyone.

Oil

To those new to energy and ecological issues, it will arm you with facts and frankly scare you shitless about the prospects of peak oil, climate change and resource depletion if we fail to act; for seasoned eco-warriors, it will improve your arguments and reinforce the stark prospects we face if we fail to get our message across.

After first hearing Paul speak at Green Party Spring Conference 2006 in Scarborough, I invited him to LSE this year to hear his presentation on peak oil and energy. I was amazed at his encyclopedic knowledge and astounding insights – he answered questions in the most proficient and fluent way I have ever seen. I don’t just recommend his book – I recommend you hold a meeting with Paul and get other to hear him speak. And ask him anything – anything – and see if you can stump him. I’ll offer you £50 if you can make him even stutter.

Here is an extract from Energy Beyond Oil in the Introduction, which is about the most succinct explanation of the predicament we’re in that I’ve ever read or heard. It is set up as a recurring conversation between the author and other people (in italics), and is particularly relevant given recent rises in oil prices:

There is a fundamental physical law of the universe – The First Law of Thermodynamics. It states:

“In any closed system, the total amount of energy of all kinds is a constant”

The Earth is a closed system. It receives energy from the Sun, and the Moon pulls the oceans across the globe to make the tides. Apart from these two, almost constant, energy inputs from the outside the Earth has no other external energy sources. Any other energy source we use has to come from the Earth itself… and these sources are running out.

Oil is almost at peak production – after that, it’s on its way out. Within ten to twelve years, when the pumps can suck no greater volumes of oil from the ground, production will go into decline and it will never rise again. Oil deposits will be exhausted, in terms of oil being a bulk energy resource, around 2050.

So what’s the problem, it’s going to last another fifty years?

Market economics… When oil production reaches its peak, from that day on every state across the globe will be competing on price for the ever-dwindling level of production that remains. Result: between 2010 and 2015 the price of oil will start climbing higher and higher, doubling or tripling in price in just the first ten to fifteen years after the peak, and, from that point on, it will never fall in price again. We could shift to gas, but for many of the uses of oil – such as a fuel in cars or as the feed material for the production of plastics – natural gas just can’t provide as efficient a replacement.

So what?… all those renewable technologies will get comparatively cheaper?

Energy density… Oil and gas are actually very dense sources of energy – they contain a large amount of energy per unit of mass compared to other sources. Let’s compare motor fuel with its nearest renewable equivalent, biodiesel. It takes two hundred and fifty gallons of diesel per year to keep the average diesel car going the average distance travelled every year. Replace that with biodiesel, and you have to find a hectare (2.5 acres) of land to produce the three tonnes of oilseeds that biodiesel production requires. Want to make the twenty-odd million cars in the UK run on biodiesel? – sorry, but that would take five times more land than all the farm land currently in cultivation in the UK. Even if we turned over half the cultivated land in the UK to produce biofuels it would only keep just over two million cars (less than 10% of the current car fleet) on the road – and of course this figure doesn’t include lorries, trains, tractors, etc., which would also demand biodiesel to keep running.

But what about hydrogen, that wonder-fuel of the future?

You need energy to make it… The Earth is a closed system and we don’t have natural hydrogen reserves. We can’t magic it from the air, water, or any other source. Hydrogen itself is not a fuel. Like electricity it is a carrier of energy. We have to put the energy into processes that make hydrogen in order to produce a fuel that gives us back only 40% to 80% of the energy we invested in making it. Currently hydrogen production relies on the use of hydrocarbons like oil and gas. Of course, there is also the slight problem that large-scale hydrogen use could make a huge hole in the ozone layer every bit as bad as all those chlorofluorocarbons we banned fifteen years ago.

OK, if we’re desperate we can go nuclear can’t we?

There’s not enough uranium… Even if we ignored all the problems with nuclear power (for example, no one has yet found a fully reliable method for storing the highly radioactive wastes produced for a hundred thousand years) if the world switched most of its electrical requirements to nuclear, there’s only enough uranium to keep fission reactors burning for fifteen to twenty years. We could try and get the more risky fast breeder reactors work reliably (not an easy job) to make the uranium go further… in which case we might get fifty or sixty years of energy. The only longer-term nuclear option is fusion. But that’s perhaps a century away and, even then, it’s not clear that it could provide the current energy consumption of the globe for generations to come.

But I thought we could have more oil from Iraq now?

Iraq’s oil represents just 4 years global use… Iraq’s proven oil reserves are 112.5 billion barrels – global consumption in 2004 was 29 billion barrels, and that’s rising two to four percent per year driven by the industrialisation of India and China. New oil and gas finds are getting smaller, and are not replacing current consumption. So the total level of oil and gas resources is falling. Also, as existing oil fields reach about half of their viable production, the level of output begins to fall off because it’s harder to suck the oil out. Put this together, and Iraq really doesn’t make a lot of difference given the scale of global consumption.

Well, we’ve still got two hundred years worth of coal!

Climate change makes its use impossible… We might have had two hundred years worth in 1950, but at today’s level of electricity consumption the UK’s 1.5 billion tonnes of coal reserves will only last us nine years. Coal can be turned into oil and gas and all sorts of minerals. But coal isn’t as efficient to use to produce energy as oil and gas because it mainly consists of carbon, not hydrocarbons. Therefore you need to burn more of it to get the same energy output, and you’d still have problems making other products like fertilisers or plastics. Most significantly, if the world used coal to replace oil and gas the increase in carbon emissions would mean that climate change might wipe us out.

Expensive oil, renewables are not enough, no coal, no nukes… we’re in trouble!

Yes, and that starts in the next five to ten years when energy prices rocket – not in fifty years when oil is scarce.

It’s at this point that many participants begin to experience what could be described as metanoic shock. Old certainties don’t seem so certain any more. And the comfort of our Western lifestyle suddenly seems to represent a thin veneer over the twilight zone where cheap holidays and off-road vehicles are as fond a memory as steam trains.

… What’s heartening is that some people see this impending realignment of global energy quotas as a great opportunity. A chance to redefine the balance between humans and the planet in order to create a sustainable future…

… I hope that the message you take from this book is a positive one. That Western society is about to undergo a massive, collective shock, but, by applying basic principles of sustainable development we can live through this period… albeit without the ready-meals, cheap flights to Spain, 4×4s, Britney Spears videos, Formula One racing, plastic umbrellas…

12 Responses to “‘Energy Beyond Oil’ by Paul Mobbs – Could YOU Cut YOUR Energy by 60%?”

  1. [...] As a way of telling us that we’re all doomed we get this: [...]

  2. Aled Dilwyn Fisher said

    Hi all,

    Tim posted on his blog (http://timworstall.com/) about how I am an “idiotarian” for thinking that the Earth is a closed system. I’ve posted the reply below to his blog as well.

    Hi Tim,

    I think you should have a closer look at that post.

    I am quoting from a book by Paul Mobbs, an engineer and ecologist, so those words are not mine.

    The “logical leap” you mention is explained in terms of the relative advantages and disadvantages of energy sources in the rest of the post that you fail to quote and misrepresent here.

    I am not (and do not claim to be) an expert of physics or energy, but have a look at this -

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/c.html

    or

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_earth_an_open_or_closed_system.

    There is a lot of debate on the value of the terms ‘open’ and ‘closed’ for the Earth, but if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_systems_theory#C, it confirms that the open-closed system definitions are on a continuum. No system is completely closed.

    Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Overview which states that “Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment”. In this thermodynamic sense, Earth is predominately a closed system (except for the fact that matter does enter the Earth in the form of meteors etc).

    Essentially, Earth is a closed system for everything but energy, which Paul makes clear when he talks about the Sun and Moon.

    Regardless of this largely academic debate, I don’t think that it affects the outcome of his arguments on the scarcity of oil/gas reserves, the shortcomings of hydrogen fuel, the impossible implications for climate change of using coal or the fact that nuclear is not a sustainable option, which you haven’t included here. I’d like to see you engage with that rather than call me (not the actual author) an “idiotarian”! We are both, after all, graduates of the same university…

    Aled :)

  3. passer by said

    what was it that Orwell said about some things being so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.

    Things sure are in decline at the LSE, Prof Popper will be turning in his grave.

  4. passer by said

    btw, who is this Mobbs guy, seems to me he is little more than a pretend academic.

    How about trying out the thoughts of one of the worlds greatest living physicists? Freeman Dyson has to say on the whole subject.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494

  5. Derek Wall said

    looks like you have the panglossians on your case. Infinite economic growth on a finite planet, I am skeptical economist on this one…I still think climate change is a bigger threat than peak oil…interestingly my weekly copy of the Economist, the free market economists free market bible seems to be a catalogue of concern over climate change, despite the lack of concern from people like tim worstall

  6. passer by said

    “panglossians”?,

    Maybe its because we are not materialists and as such dont see economics as a science, which it is not.

    As popper pointed out all life is problem solving, get used to it.

  7. Aled Dilwyn Fisher said

    I can only wonder what Popper, as a fan of social criticism, would have made of someone coming onto a blog and writing anonymous and unconstructive comments (strangely, the first time I have heard Greens described as “materialists” who treat economics as a science).

  8. passer by said

    Earth worship is very much MATERIALST, As pointed out in the link. a secular religion.

    Popper esp in his later years was very much in agreement with his life long friend Hyeck that economics was not a science.

    The purpose of any critism is to try and break down an argument to see if it still stands, or whats left, yours lies in tatters, sorry for the critism.

  9. Aled Dilwyn Fisher said

    Passer by,

    Criticism is great, and I encourage it.

    Anonymously posting on a blog, invoking Orwell and Popper to tell me that my university much be going down the pan, and sarcastically linking elsewhere does not amount to criticism.

  10. Sue J said

    To Passer By: in contrast to your reply, I don’t see anywhere in the article that you linked to where it says that earth worshippers are materialists … in fact it doesn’t mention earth worshippers at all, as they are not necessarily the same as environmentalists.

  11. nick said

    The Earth will eventually recover from whatever people do to it, the point is to love the people and other species that inhabit it now!
    Happy to be descibed as a materialist, not an earth worshipper, as a confident athiest, I don’t worship anything, not even the “Manifesto for a sustainable Society”

    Great Blog Aled btw!

  12. Trevor B said

    I thought the intro was very good. I have been looking at peak oil for some time now and while some hyp seems exaggerated and over simplified, assuming that we do nothing in-between now and the impending disaster the fact remains that ignoring the situation is not going to help. Even when we do come up with solutions just think of the difficulty of re jigging our whole world, which will by itself require huge amounts of energy. It seems we really do have conjunction elements that could contribute to the perfect storm not least of all because our whole economic system relies on inexpensive energy. With regard to the insults, it’s a common practice of those loosing an argument to try and change the subject.

    I recommend the following web site for those interested to visit:

    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

    Although one of the gloomier scenarios it does make a lot of salient points and has lots of useful links.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>