Oil’s dominance is gradually ebbing and will eventually end. But eventually is a long time, and our energy economy can’t totally retool in a decade.
Down the road, there’s a future powered by solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels and maybe hydrogen. In the meantime, the fastest way to boost energy security as well as slow the flow of wealth to terrorists, tinpots and would-be tsars is to drill, drill, drill wherever oil in U.S. territory may be found.
--Investor’s Business Daily, 15 August 2008
And drill, drill, drill Australia too!?
PS This is a good summary of my own view and it hasn’t a thing to do with mirages like ....
...the repeatable, falsifiable, testable, repeatable physics of Co2 against various wavelengths of energy.
Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule. (The electronic excitations are generally not relevant for infrared radiation, as they require energy larger than that in an infrared photon.)
The width of a spectral line is an important element in understanding its importance for the absorption of radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere these spectral widths are primarily determined by “pressure broadening”, which is the distortion of the spectrum due to the collision with another molecule. Most of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere can be thought of as occurring while two molecules are colliding. The absorption due to a photon interacting with a lone molecule is relatively small. This three-body aspect of the problem, one photon and two molecules, makes direct quantum mechanical computation for molecules of interest more challenging.Careful laboratory spectroscopic measurements, rather than ab initio quantum mechanical computations, provide the basis for most of the radiative transfer calculations used in studies of the atmosphere.
Year-over-year increase of atmospheric CO2: In the 1960s, the average annual increase was 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.
Year-over-year increase of atmospheric CO2: In the 1960s, the average annual increase was 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007.[5]
The molecules/atoms that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere: oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar); do not interact with infrared radiation significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate, because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient charge separation. Without such a transient dipole moment, they can neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone (O3). The same molecules are also the dominant infrared emitting molecules. CO2 and O3 have “floppy” vibration motions whose quantum states can be excited by collisions at energies encountered in the atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, but it has an important vibrational mode in which the molecule bends with the carbon in the middle moving one way and the oxygens on the ends moving the other way, creating some charge separation, a dipole moment, thus carbon dioxide molecules can absorb IR radiation. Collisions will immediately transfer this energy to heating the surrounding gas. On the other hand, other CO2 molecules will be vibrationally excited by collisions. Roughly 5% of CO2 molecules are vibrationally excited at room temperature and it is this 5% that radiates. A substantial part of the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide exists because this vibration is easily excited by infrared radiation. CO2 has two other vibrational modes. The symmetric stretch does not radiate, and the asymmetric stretch is at too high a frequency to be effectively excited by atmospheric temperature collisions, although it does contribute to absorption of IR radiation. The vibrational modes of water are at too high energies to effectively radiate, but do absorb higher frequency IR radiation. Water vapor has a bent shape. It has a permanent dipole moment (the O atom end is electron rich, and the H atoms electron poor) which means that IR radiation can be emitted and absorbed during rotational transitions, and these transitions can also be produced by collisional energy transfer. Clouds are also very important infrared absorbers. Therefore, water has multiple effects on infrared radiation, through its vapor phase and through its condensed phases. Other absorbers of significance include methane, nitrous oxide and the chlorofluorocarbons.
Discussion of the relative importance of different infrared absorbers is confused by the overlap between the spectral lines due to different gases, widened by pressure broadening. As a result, the absorption due to one gas cannot be thought of as independent of the presence of other gases. One convenient approach is to remove the chosen constituent, leaving all other absorbers, and the temperatures, untouched, and monitoring the infrared radiation escaping to space. The reduction in infrared absorption is then a measure of the importance of that constituent. More precisely, define the greenhouse effect (GE) to be the difference between the infrared radiation that the surface would radiate to space if there were no atmosphere and the actual infrared radiation escaping to space. Then compute the percentage reduction in GE when a constituent is removed. The table below is computed by this method, using a particular 1-dimensional model of the atmosphere. More recent 3D computations lead to similar results.
In the meantime, the fastest way to boost energy security as well as slow the flow of wealth to terrorists, tinpots and would-be tsars is to drill, drill, drill wherever oil in U.S. territory may be found.
--Investor’s Business Daily, 15 August 2008
And drill, drill, drill Australia too!?
How closely are you following the US elections David? “Drill, drill, drill wherever oil in U.S. territory may be found” is the issue the Republicans are running on, which has been described as know-nothing politics.
That the line would get regurgitated says plenty about the publications politics and nothing about the issue.
It’s two parts populism (’In a matter of months you’ll have relief at the bowser!’ which is a flat out lie) and two parts doing their friends in the Oil biz some favours before the Dem’s take the reigns.
If your own view can be summarized by political sloganeering (’Drill here! Drill now!’) during an election campaign, then it would appear to be somewhat devoid of substance…
America peaked almost 4 decades ago. It was a vast oil producing empire, but now produces 30% less oil than it did back at its peak. They’re simply not going to drill their way into energy independence, not even the USGS or DOE thinks that.
Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.
20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.
Given that most independent peak oil researchers think that the peak is appx 2010 (give or take a year or 2), that puts us into the ‘Late inititation of mitigation and severe consequences’ category.
Had to pick myself up off the floor after that one Jason. It’s a work of art! I think the Satire Scale hit ‘11’. I don’t know what’s scarier, the frenzied sketching, the scary southern accent, images of Jesus being covered in oil, or the wife echoing sentiments in the background. For some reason it reminds me of the humour in “Repo man”.
Sadly though, getting back to David’s point above — ‘drill drill drill’ does seem to be the Republican religious conservative view, mixing bad theology with bad science that’s confused both about global warming and peak oil.
And Gordo… lighten up, Jason so rarely comments in SA lately that you should treat him as an honoured guest OK?
Cool. But, once again, which bit of the spectrometer experiments don’t you agree with?
(Edit to add:)
BTW — your hero Mr Robert Carter has been at it again and gets another mention in the climate literature.
Robert Carter said a great deal more than Svensmark on the panel. He made a point of the last couple of years being cold. But he did not appear to understand Jansen’s explanation of the difference between trends and natural variability (see here). What really struck me was not who was saying what, but the intellectual level of discussion: the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities which for a long time have been regarded as solved or explained in the climate research community. When you keep starting at square one, you’ll never make much progress.
Other statements did not have a scientific basis (e.g. Morner popped out from the crowd and said that the sea levels are not rising - not true - and then saluted the panel). Thus the debate seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution.
What is going on? Is there a higher proportion of geologists that have a completely different view on climate change, or was this a biased representation of the community? The thought of stifling a scientific debate by insisting on outrageous or ignorant claims also has struck me.
( Craig Emerson is the Minister for Small Business in the Rudd Government. This is a summary of a presentation to Consilium, organised by the Centre for Independent Studies )
There is an interesting opinion piece in today’s “Australian” from a top Labor minister with a bit of experience. Here are a few quotes worth a second look :
When we look around the world and find that prosperity is rising strongly in some countries but not in others, seekers of the secret formula for success ask why. Lots of temporary causes come into play: oil discoveries, tourism fads such as safari experiences and even countries setting themselves up as tax havens. But these passing influences don’t really tell us what overall government policy approaches will give a country its best chance of success in the prosperity stakes.
As director-general of the Queensland environment department in the early ‘90s I inquired into the life-cycle benefits of container deposit legislation.
Glass bottles destined for reuse need to be many times the thickness of those that are melted down or disposed of in landfill. We discovered that by the time account was taken of the energy and water costs of collecting, transporting and washing the bottles, reuse of bottles was bad for the environment. We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals.
The message is clear: irrationality sells and any questioning of spurious environmental claims is an act of heresy.
That’s right Kevin, and there’s just so much debate and uncertainty about the physics of Co2 Molecules and everything.
I mean, it’s not like they can test these things! Oh wait…
BTW — Do you think Mr Carter was being treated harshly in the example above? Is he being persecuted for spreading bad science, or is he just being ‘peer reviewed’?
I’m going to start The Moon is Cheese debate! After all, I saw it on this really cool documentary about a guy who went to the moon with his dog, and it was CHEESE! If anyone ‘peer reviews’ me I’m going to recite a litany I keep hearing, “Science is not a consensus! Help help I’m being oppressed!”
(Edited because my previous jokes lacked any funny, and hopefully there’s now about a gram of funny and a gram of fibre.)
There are two problems with all this.
1. Oil is still being found. Exploration off the continental shelf has just started. It will be more expensive, but it is there.
2. There is always the ‘other’ option. Quick, proven, and we have lots of uranium.
The alternatives have yet to prove their value, wind 30% effective and probably not green enough, Solar I’m waiting, tidal Ok if you have the regular rise and fall. Wave power, I believe there is a wave power experiment off the Victorian coast which has had it’s machinery destroyed at least twice by the Bass strait storms. We have heard absolutely nothing of our experiment in Cockburn sound which leads me to suspect it is not doing what it was intended.
Jon R
But weren’t we just talking about global warming and Co2 molecules? This is a funny thread… Kevin throws in someone paranoid about how the Greenies will react to their glass recycling study, and now we’re bouncing back to peak oil?
Sorry Jon but the facts are not with you on that one. There might be a few bumps on the downward trend, but we’re talking about 40 years of dwindling discovery. What are the quantities of the fields being discovered today? 50 million barrels? That’s nothing, we use 84 million barrels a day.
I’ll tell you what — check my link above and tell me what year it was the last time we discovered more oil than we burned? How long ago was that… last year? Is that why prices are rising so high? Check it out.
Also, I’m sure various renewable technologies have a fair few kinks to work out but there’s also plenty of good news on the subject as well, with base load capacity and costs coming down. Nuclear is a non-starter as it simply costs too much. (And peak uranium isn’t that far off either). The reality is that we’re simply going to have to go renewable because it is… um… renewable. The lifetime of babies born today is the lifetime of Peak Everything. And that thought has me really wondering what kind of world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren. But other than a few ABC shows, the media and politicians just can’t talk about it. Bizarre and surreal — like they’re all in the Matrix.
