End of the Age of Oil?

[nwdiver]

I question whether 100% is actually necessary. At some point, there must be a sustainable level of production that is offset through other means, such as the growth of forests.

Forests largely don't offset fossil fuels; it's a band-aid at best since you're not removing carbon from the biosphere but you're still adding it; There probably is some 'sustainable' level of fossil fuel use but it's not likely to be economically significant. By the time we're producing enough energy from renewables that we need hydrocarbon energy storage just to see us through the darker periods of winter the morally acceptable sources of hydrocarbons will be at scale.

 

[beeeerock]

By the time we're producing enough energy from renewables that we need hydrocarbon energy storage just to see us through the darker periods of winter the morally acceptable sources of hydrocarbons will be at scale.

I get what you're saying and I hope you're right! There is no currently scalable and affordable alternative to natural gas for heating here in Canada that I can see being retrofitted in the necessary time frame. Whether the link you provided happens will be interesting... I was watching 'Carbon Sciences' for some time - they claimed to be able to pull CO2 from stack gasses and make simple hydrocarbons - but I see they're into graphene now and don't have much to say about their CO2 technology. Disappointing. Plenty of mousetraps, but still an abundance of mice.

It'll probably take 90% of our efforts to solve the last 10% - if you know what I mean. The easy stuff will be dealt with first! At some point I'm hopeful that we can offset the last difficult sources of CO2 production with a technology that captures it. The nut we have to crack is incredibly huge and as hard as iron.

 

[nwdiver]

There is no currently scalable and affordable alternative to natural gas for heating here in Canada that I can see being retrofitted in the necessary time frame.

Ground Source heat pumps?

It'll probably take 90% of our efforts to solve the last 10% - if you know what I mean. The easy stuff will be dealt with first! At some point I'm hopeful that we can offset the last difficult sources of CO2 production with a technology that captures it. The nut we have to crack is incredibly huge and as hard as iron.

Agreed; I expect the last ~20% to be more difficult than the first ~80%...

 

[ggies07]

People have already figured out ways to make the transition happened to 100% renewable energy by 2050. This book by Amory Lovins gives detail in each area that we need to approve upon and doing it all through business, nothing political and this came out in 2011. Some might find this book a little too optimistic, but just like nwdiver said, it's if we want to make the change happen.

Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era: Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute, Marvin Odum, John W. Rowe: 9781603583718: Amazon.com: Books

 

[beeeerock]

Ground Source heat pumps?

LOL! That's what I use (although in a vertical closed-loop configuration). I think it's the best solution so far, but imagine the drilling and excavating involved to get it done on a large scale. Imagine the loop system needed for a large apartment building, or an office tower - installed in a high density area! It's a formidable problem, technically, and a very expensive one financially!

We'll have to pick the large, plump, low-hanging fruit first, then get to the tougher stuff as best we can.

 

[RichardC]

The problem with a carbon tax or any other method of raising the price of energy is it makes everything that is manufactured more expensive. This makes you less competitive to any other place that doesn't impose it. The idea of replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar sounds great and it certainly can help but the sun doesn't shine all the time nor does the wind blow all the time. This means that you need backup. The cost to maintain peak capacity to replace the wind and solar costs a lot more per Kwh than if it runs continuously. This greatly increases the overall cost of the energy. Battery storage can help but it doesn't help much during the winter when solar is much lower than in the summer. My solar varies from a peak of about 60 Kwh per day average in mid summer to as low as 4 Kwh per day average in winter. So I need a lot of backup in the winter. The system I installed pays out in about 8 years. The cost to install a system that would handle my winter needs is cost prohibitive even if I had enough roof space. So I think we are a long way from replacing fossil fuels.

Making manufactured goods more expensive is actually not a problem for two reasons:

1. A carbon fee and dividend model would be stimulative in that 70% to 80% of the public (the lower income portion) would have net more money to spend after paying for the carbon pollution, thereby stimulating economic activity; and
2. Border adjustments would impose the same level of carbon fees on any goods imported into the jurisdiction, thereby tending to encourage local manufacturing as the addition carbon footprint for transportation will tend to increase to cost of goods shipped a great distance.

The following is an example of such a regime:

Pollution Levy and Dividend - Methodology and Process

1. Set a significant, and annually increasing, price on GHG emissions (Co2, methane, etc., all calculated as CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)) including the emissions embedded in all imported goods and services. (For example, initially $50 per tonne, increasing annually by $20 per tonne, together with any required adjustment for inflation.)
2. Establish accounting and audit standards (for example, based on ISO 14064) and collection mechanisms (which could easily piggyback on the GST collection apparatus to capture and collect the pollution added by transport and further processing).
3. Calculate total annual estimated pollution levy for the first year.
4. Divide the total annual estimated pollution levy for the first year by the number of permanent residents of Canada to determine the annual per resident dividend for the first year.
5. One quarter of the annual per resident dividend will be distributed to each permanent resident at the beginning of each calendar quarter (Jan 1, April 1, July 1 and Oct 1) in advance of the collection of the levy.
6. The same process, at annually increasing pollution levy levels, would be applied for each successive year.
7. Any adjustment (surplus or deficit) required to dividend out the full amount of the pollution levy would be made to the dividend payments for the following year.
8. The steadily increasing prices (and the known amount of the increases in the future) would encourage investments in innovation, the substitution of non-emitting alternatives and conservation, and over time lead to the gradual replacement of carbon emitting energy sources with non-emitting alternatives.

Example: Assume average per resident Canadian emissions of 20 Tonnes CO2e

1. Year 1 - At $50 per tonne of CO2e ($0.14/litre), the annual per resident dividend for the first year would be $1000 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
2. During the course of Year 1 (and thereafter) the pollution levy would be charged on all GHG emissions (including embedded GHG emissions) and any surplus or deficit carried forward to the next year.
3. Year 2 - At $70 per tonne of CO2e ($0.19/litre) and assuming a 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the second year would be $1330 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 1 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
4. Year 3 - At $90 per tonne of CO2e ($0.25/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the third year would be $1620 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 2 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
5. Year 4 - At $110 per tonne of CO2e ($0.30/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the fourth year would be $1870 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 3 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).
6. Year 5 - At $130 per tonne of CO2e ($0.35/litre) and assuming a further 5% decrease in GHG emissions, the annual per resident dividend for the fourth year would be $2080 plus any surplus or deficit carried forward from Year 4 (to be paid in quarterly installments in advance).

The advantages of this approach include the following:

1. It is a pollution levy, to reflect the additional cost of GHG emissions, and not a tax as it is fully paid back to the public.
2. The pollution levy is not increasing government revenues, and it is not impacting the economy as it is not removing any money from the economy. (These two points would be important to sell the approach to Conservatives and Republicans.)
3. It is not regressive in its impact on the least fortunate members of society, and will not cause any hardship as the average amount of pollution levy to be paid by Canadians will be received by them in advance.
4. The dividend can be used to finance investments in conservation and/or low emissions alternatives by the less fortunate. (These two points would be important to sell the approach to Liberals, Democrats and the New Democrats.)
5. It relies upon the free market, and the opportunities provided by the increasing pollution levy, to incent investments in innovation and the development of creative solutions.
6. While its initial impact is very small, e.g., $0.14 per litre, and provides the public, industry and investors with time to adapt and to coordinate effective responses through the market, it will gradually (over a 20 or 30 or 40 year time frame), result in the complete replacement of fossil fuels as the pollution levy increases to approximately $2 per litre (plus adjustments for inflation).
7. Recognition by investors of the massive size of the renewable energy market will lead to continually falling prices and the rapid adoption of replacement technologies at prices that will rapidly accelerate the transition from fossil fuels for most purposes.
8. This approach is comparatively simple to implement and to audit, and does not provide the broad opportunities for fraud, cheating and sector by sector government interference which are inherent in cap and trade systems. The pollution levy model can also relatively easily be extended across national borders.
9. It also facilitates planning and investment based on known future prices (unlike cap and trade models where wild swings in prices do not provide the stability and predictability required to spur investments). (The EU cap and trade model and the US renewable portfolio standards have both suffered from booms and busts which have impeded the development of alternatives.)
10. Imports would be subject to a pollution levy on their accrued emission content (on a completely non-discriminatory basis) to comply with WTO trade agreements which would prevent the export of jobs to more heavily polluting jurisdictions and in fact encourage other jurisdictions to both reduce their own GHG emissions (to improve the competitiveness of their exports) and to implement their own compatible pollution levy regimes in order to avoid losing the pollution levy revenues to Canada (and the other countries which adopt similar and compatible models).

 

[Robert.Boston]

I see carbon taxes ramping up, with global recognition that it must be done everywhere... and for those who don't get on board, big tariffs on anything they produce. Or maybe they're boycotted altogether. The political sell is the most important part of it... without the will to act, it'll get discussed for the next 30 years - if we last that long.

The taxes would go straight into funding clean renewable energy. Carbon users/producers would pay to obsolete themselves.

From my perspective as a renewable energy professional, my company would not need any government support structures under a substantial, comprehensive, and increasing carbon tax as I outlined. I don't think my company is alone. In such a world new fossil-fueled power plants would be a folly (except for the occasional gas-fired peaker to provide regulation) and investors would be scrambling to fund innovative technologies in producing and storing renewable energy.

Imagine if all the money now spent by oil majors on exploration and development were instead spent on renewable and storage R&D. ExxonMobil alone charged $2 B of exploration expenses to income in 2014; I'm not sure how much more of its upstream unit's $32.7 B capital and exploration spend could have been saved if XOM stopped drilling new fields, but I suspect a lot.

 

[RichardC]

I get what you're saying and I hope you're right! There is no currently scalable and affordable alternative to natural gas for heating here in Canada that I can see being retrofitted in the necessary time frame. ...

Air source heat pumps are a viable replacement for gas furnaces and gas water heaters for the vast majority of North America. When powered by green (non-fossil fuelled) electricity, heat pumps are a zero carbon alternative for gas heating appliances. Air source cold weather heat pumps are approximately three times as efficient (on a seasonal basis) as electric heat and can be installed in most residential and commercial applications, in place of an air conditioner (the heat pump both heats and cools, as required). Current cold weather heat pumps generate substantial heat to below minus 20 degrees Celsius, as well as serving as highly efficient air conditioners. They can be supplemented, in extraordinarily cold conditions, if required, by some electrical resistance heating.

Each gas furnace can be expected to generate on the order of 100 Tonnes of CO2 over its life. While air source heat pumps are currently more expensive, they are often not materially more expensive than the combined cost of a furnace and air conditioning. Mass adoption of cold weather air source heat pumps could be expected to bring down the cost to approximately the same levels as an air conditioner, as the required components are essentially the same.

While air source heat pumps are not as efficient as ground source heat pumps, they are excellent alternative for those who lack either the required financial or real estate resources required to install a ground source unit. Air source cold weather heat pumps do not require access to land or to water as they use only outside air as the source of heat in winter and for cooling in summer.

We have been using air source heat pumps for many years in Southern Ontario to good effect.

 

[beeeerock]

People have already figured out ways to make the transition happened to 100% renewable energy by 2050. This book by Amory Lovins gives detail in each area that we need to approve upon and doing it all through business, nothing political and this came out in 2011. Some might find this book a little too optimistic, but just like nwdiver said, it's if we want to make the change happen.

Reviews look pretty good - I'll likely pick this up in the next little while!

- - - Updated - - -

The following is an example of such a regime:

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying what you're saying, but essentially those who generate more GHG's than average will pay more than average, those that generate less than average will actually see a financial reward. And the cost gap will get wider with time.

I can see that working because you're actually combining the stick and the carrot... pick which you prefer...!

- - - Updated - - -

Imagine if all the money now spent by oil majors on exploration and development were instead spent on renewable and storage R&D. ExxonMobil alone charged $2 B of exploration expenses to income in 2014; I'm not sure how much more of its upstream unit's $32.7 B capital and exploration spend could have been saved if XOM stopped drilling new fields, but I suspect a lot.

Heh! I have imagined that, quite a few times! Add in the money spent on arms and ensuring an oil supply and the number gets even larger. It makes me kinda giddy actually... if only it could happen!

The economic stimulus would also have interesting effects I think. I've never been comfortable with money being spent on what can only be described as short sighted ventures. There needs to be *value* in expenditures if an economy is going to remain healthy. At least that's my non-economist take on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Air source heat pumps are a viable replacement for gas furnaces and gas water heaters for the vast majority of North America. When powered by green (non-fossil fuelled) electricity, heat pumps are a zero carbon alternative for gas heating appliances. Air source cold weather heat pumps are approximately three times as efficient (on a seasonal basis) as electric heat and can be installed in most residential and commercial applications, in place of an air conditioner (the heat pump both heats and cools, as required). Current cold weather heat pumps generate substantial heat to below minus 20 degrees Celsius, as well as serving as highly efficient air conditioners. They can be supplemented, in extraordinarily cold conditions, if required, by some electrical resistance heating.

Interesting. When I had a gas furnace and was looking at adding air conditioning, I was told that the typical air source heat pump was not very useful below about 4 degrees. That was probably 15 years ago, or a little more. Good to know that they're better able to extend their useful heating range to something colder now. Minus 20 would be fine just about anywhere as you suggest - the number of days where the temperature is consistently lower than that aren't that many and could be supplemented as you note.

 

[Alfred]

Air source heat pumps are a viable replacement for gas furnaces and gas water heaters for the vast majority of North America.....

....We have been using air source heat pumps for many years in Southern Ontario to good effect.

In Switzerland heat pumps are now dominating the market for heating appliances. In Zurich more than 90% of new installations use this technology. About 60% are air to water pumps. The rest take the heat from the ground and use simple straight bore holes. A common depth for a small single family home is about 150m. Depending on the geology you plan by assuming about 50W/m. Installation is "subsidized" with tax concessions. The COP for earth register installations is around 4-5 i.e. will save about 75-80% in energy terms. As we have no thermal electricity generation, the saving in CO2 is large.

 

[RichardC]

...
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying what you're saying, but essentially those who generate more GHG's than average will pay more than average, those that generate less than average will actually see a financial reward. And the cost gap will get wider with time.

I can see that working because you're actually combining the stick and the carrot... pick which you prefer...!

It is better than just a break even proposition. A substantial majority of the population use less than the average, and come out ahead economically. They also tend to be the demographic which has lower income and can be counted on to immediately spend the new surplus amount, which will be another positive, in that it stimulates the economy. The model also further focuses spending on the local economy due to the higher carbon cost of remote products and the fact that most fossil fuels come from remote locations.

 

[Alfred]

ms. As we have no thermal electricity generation, the saving in CO2 is large.

Maybe I have to clarify - Robert (and thank you). I did not count nuclear as "thermal". Switzerland is about 40% nuclear and 60% hydro. As Electricity demand overall is not rising very much, new uses, such as for electric vehicles and heat pumps are a good approach to reduce CO2 production. Unfortunately a strong anti-nuclear lobby, just as in Germany, vilifies electricity use and in this way indirectly fosters CO2 production by hindering cleaner alternatives at the end point of use.

 

[Jim MacInnes]

Some of you may find the work of Wharton Economist, Jeremy Rifkin, of interest. He has written much about our energy transition including "the Third Industrial Revolution." Jeremy Rifkin and The Third Industrial Revolution Home Page