We Cannot Replace Oil

Oil is still cheap. We have used it in a profligate manner, with little regard for the true value of such an energy rich fuel; concentrated sunshine, the product of millions of years of geological processing. We will soon regret how quickly we have squandered such a precious resource.

In "Introduction to Peak Oil", I tried to show that the peak in global oil production is much closer than the official forecasts. On this page, I try to explain why many of the proposed alternatives will not work on a scale sufficient to maintain our existing lifestyles. There is no easy substitute for oil and gas.

The good news is that we will have to change our lifestyles.

• We will live more locally.
• We will know where our food comes from.
• We will know our neighbours.
• We won't get stuck in traffic.
• Work will be meaningul.

We can make these changes sooner, because we recognise the problem and want to develop the solutions. Or we can make these changes later; after the anger, blame and violence that may accompany the transition.

The Hydrogen illusion

Until recently, as a young 'green' engineer, I had hoped that the hydrogen economy would provide the way to meet our 21st century transport needs. We could have renewable sources of electricity to generate hydrogen which could be used to power hydrogen fuel cell cars.

I now realise that the 'hydrogen economy' is a myth. It lets us believe that our current lifestyles can be sustained with a new clean fuel. Unfortunately, the generation, transportation, storage and conversion of hydrogen back to electricity is a very inefficient process. 80% of the energy input may be lost in the process.

In a world of declining total energy production and intense competition for available resources, it will not be possible to waste 80% to meet our transportation needs. Battery powered electric cars will be a better option, where the efficiency may be closer to 90%. More fundamentally, we will have to travel a great deal less than we currently do.

For more details, I recommend reading "the hydrogen illusion", a four page article by Ulf Bossel, founder and organiser of the European Fuel Cell Forum.

Nuclear

Nuclear Power is not Cheap

No new nuclear power stations have been built in any country with a de-regulated electricity network. This is clear evidence that nuclear power cannot compete on financial terms with gas, coal or wind. It is not profitable unless the Government and the public pay the bill for insurance and bear the liability for waste disposal.

Nuclear power also has a very long lead time. Every dollar/pound/euro spent on nuclear power is wasted and should be spent on more sustainable solutions to the coming energy crisis.

Nuclear Power is not Clean or Sustainable

• The mining, extraction, processing and transport of uranium fuels is an energy intensive process.
• With high grade uranium ore, a nuclear power plant over its lifetime would produce 1/3 as much C02 as a coal fired power station. With low grade uranium ores, nuclear would produce as much C02 as a coal fired power station - hardly the answer to our climate change problem!
• If all our electricity was generated by nuclear power, reserves of high grade uranium would last only three years.

For more details on the life cycle emissions of nuclear power, read "Can nuclear power provide energy for the future? by energy consultant Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and nuclear physicist Philip Smith.

The Nuclear Industry is Good at Public Relations

In the United Kingdom especially, but also in the USA and Australia, the nuclear industry has kicked off a remarkable PR campaign. Without any change in Government policy, and in the UK without even any supporting comments from Ministers, it suddenly seems like there is a new debate about the need for nuclear power as a 'clean' source of electricity to solve climate change.

From a simple engineering analysis, a revival of nuclear power is not as certain as this PR campaign might indicate, and I am not the only one who thinks that "the case for a new atomic dawn to meet the carbon challenge is holed from stem to stern". ["Nuclear Delusion" in The Guardian newspaper, by Tom Burke.]

Nuclear Power is not the Answer

I have a science and engineering background and am not scared of the word radiation, but there are very real reasons to be concerned about build-up of radioactive contamination in the environment.

The financial argument is even more compelling - in the United Kingdom, the 2004 Energy Act set aside £48 billion pounds to deal with existing waste, and the Department of Trade and Industry expects this figure to increase. As our available energy supplies begin to decline, we cannot afford to incur the huge liabilities of decommissioning nuclear power plants and disposing of the associated waste.

Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

The oil and coal industries are beginning to present CO2 sequestration as the way to continue our fossil fuel based lifestyles, while reducing our contribution to climate change. It should not surprise anyone to hear that the answer is not this simple.

The theory is that we could capture C02 where we are converting fossil fuels to electricity (eg. a coal fired power station) then transport it and use extremely high pressures to 'pump' it down into the same geological formations and traps from which we currently extract oil and gas from. This process requires incredible investment in infrastructure, and uses up one third of the original energy generated. Private companies are not willing to make this investment - they are looking to Governments and the public purse to provide the funding.

Carbon Dioxide sequestration is so intensive in terms of infrastructure and energy required that it will never be applied on a large scale. There are just a few isolated situations where the C02 source is close to a suitable geological trap (eg. gas turbines on offshore oil and gas platforms) such that sequestration may be applied. But it will not solve the climate change problem and certainly does not make coal 'clean'.

Coal and Climate Change

As we pass the peak of oil and gas production, many countries using oil and especially gas for electricity generation will face an incredible drive to use coal to meet their needs. There will also be proposals to convert coal into liquid fuels for transport. China and the USA in particular have enormous coal reserves.

However, from a climate change perspective, coal is the worst form of hydrocarbons. We will soon be forced to reduce our oil and gas use because of limited availability. But, if China, the USA and others turn to coal in an attempt to bridge the energy gap, then dangerous climate change is almost guaranteed.

Figure 1 shows that if we use up remaining oil and gas reserves, the average global temperature will probably increase by more than the 2 degree limit thought to represent extreme climate change. If we turn to coal on a large scale, dangerous climate change that could threaten our survival is almost guaranteed.

Managing the decline in oil and gas production without turning to coal on a large scale is our challenge for the 21st century. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that our future depends on it.

Biofuels

I would like to have some good news, so I will concede that biofuels will be important. They will enable us to continue using some of our existing transport infrastructure, which we are not going to be able to replace even over several decades. But when you do the sums for biofuels you begin to realise just how rich an energy source oil has been for the last century. Even if we convert a huge proportion of current farmland to energy crops, we will only be able to fuel a small fraction of current transport needs.

The bad news is that since farming currently requires enormous inputs of fossil fuel based fertiliser, pesticides and fuel for machinery, maintaining output from existing farmland will become a challenge. There may not be a lot of spare land to grow energy crops?