Showing posts with label DOE research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOE research. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

While DoE is complacent, DoD worries about Peak Oil

Last Sunday the Guardian carried a review of a recent report by the United States Joint Forces Command in which, hidden on page 29, lies the statement:
By 2012, surplus oil production could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 mbd.
The report bases this conclusion, in part, on the poor discovery rate that has been achieved in finding new oilfields to replace those that are beginning to run out of oil. Looking at the alternative sources of energy, it is not convinced that they provide a viable short-term alternative, given the rising levels of capital cost required for their installation at considerable scale, and thus notes and concludes that:
A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. . . . . .Fossil fuels will very likely remain the predominant energy source going forward.
It also notes that if the energy problems drive the world into another Depression, that this might lead, as it has in the past, to the rise of totalitarian regimes that sought prosperity by “ruthless conquest.”

The caveat that I have between these two statements is that, grim as they are, they don’t really recognize the totality of the problem. Simplistically energy has two major uses, one is the creation of electric power, and the other is to provide the motive fuels for transportation. The two uses are disparate, and while oil can be used to generate power, in large measure this has been left to coal and natural gas, while oil has been transformed into the various liquids that power cars, trains and aircraft. At the moment there is not a significant volume of world transport that uses coal and natural gas to drive their vehicles. Nor realistically, apart from the campaign by Boone Pickens, is there much move to change the situation.


As some influential parties in Britain perhaps begin to understand that world oil supplies are finite, and beginning to run short, this does not yet appear to affect the Departments either in the UK or the US whose job it is to be concerned and to find ways of answering the problem.

Gail Tverberg’s review of Secretary Chu’s remarks at the Energy Conference in Washington last week, identified that there is no concern in the Department of Energy over coming shortages, and thus the Department can:
a) rely on the market to solve any problems
b) continue to be more concerned about addressing the climate change issue and
c) invest in longer term research which might provide answers in a decade or so.

The Department of Defense does not live in such a world. And it has heard rumblings of concern from earlier reports by the JASON group about rising costs, given that the Department can purchase up to 101 million barrels of fuel a year, and 145 million barrels of total petroleum products as noted by a recent Congressional Research Service Report. When the price of fuel rises, then the officers in charge have to re-adjust their budgets to cope, sometimes at the cost of the overall objectives. New technologies take years, even decades, to implement, and thus answers cannot be left to “blue sky” thinking alone. And older technologies may not be able to muster enough of an answer to meet the demand. I have seen nothing that yet convinces me that the world will be able to produce more than 90 mbd of crude oil and associated fossil liquids. Thus the projection that the world will need over 118 mbd by 2030 reinforces the implication that we’d better start looking for serious answers with a lot more intensity than we have to date.

There is at least some signs that people are beginning to pay attention, recognizing that there is a risk that there may not be enough jet fuel, the Air Force has begun to check out new fuel sources. Next week is Earth Week, and the Green Hornet, an F/A-18 Super Hornet, will be flown with a mixture of 50% regular fuel and 50% biofuel from camelina. The Navy is intent on moving the program forward.
The 'Green Hornet' initiative supports Mabus' energy reform targets, which will increase warfighting capability by reducing reliance on fossil fuels from unstable locations and reducing volatility associated with long fuel supply transport lines. The secretary's energy reform targets include:

- By 2016, the Navy will sail a "Great Green Fleet" composed of nuclear ships, surface combatants with hybrid electric power systems using biofuel and aircraft flying on only biofuels.

- By 2020, at least half of the DoN's shore-based energy requirements will come from alternative sources and half of total DoN energy consumption will come from alternative sources.

"[The flight] will demonstrate that our systems can work on biofuel," Mabus said in his remarks at a recent energy forum at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, Md. "After it is successful, and we are absolutely confident that it will be; we will move to expand biofuel testing to our marine gas turbine engines and to the engines of our tactical vehicles."

The problem may be in ensuring an adequate supply. As I noted in the earlier review of camelina, it is not getting rave reviews from the farmers that will have to grow it, nor from the State Agricultural Departments that must approve farmers growing either it or canola.
Oregon officials in 2005 restricted canola-for-oil production in the valley to protect the valley's high-value vegetable seed crops. Officials recently announced they are going to renew the prohibitions.
"I would like to grow canola, but the state interferes with that, too," Van Leeuwen said.

Fears are canola will attract insect pests common to canola and brassica crops and that canola will cross pollinate with cauliflower and broccoli, lowering seed purity and eventually driving vegetable seed contractors out of the valley.

There has, however, been a recent MOU between the UDSA and Navy and the Commercial Airlines Alternate Fuels Initiative to examine the potential of camelina as a crop, though there are already some concerns
Preliminary results from Sidney, Mont., suggest that current camelina varieties use about as much water as spring wheat, so growers would still need to leave land fallow in alternate years to build up water or accept possible yield losses for wheat grown in rotation. However, with appropriate breeding and selection for uniform, desirable agronomic and oil quality characteristics, camelina has potential to be a good oil seed crop for planting during fallow years.

In the face of potential problems for any solution, it would appear wiser for those who should be looking to solve this problem to take their collective heads out of the sand and start to be a bit more constructive in their thinking.

Read more!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Peak Oil, the DOE and interesting times ahead

There is a certain sector of public opinion, including the President, that apparently feels that for the sake of taking appropriate precautions, even if the current scientific thinking on climate change is wrong, we should act as though it is right. The problem that there is, however, in the way that the argument has been accepted, is that it has led to demands for dramatic change in the way that the Federal Government is looking at future energy supplies. I was talking with a colleague today who commented on how much the conventional research funding for fossil energy fuel production is being cut. And the problem with that is that you can’t have a baby in a month by making nine women pregnant.

What do I mean by that? Well the production of energy at the level of scale that is needed for the United States (let alone the world) is difficult for many people to grasp. And making a change that will have a significant impact on that supply, in a positive sense, requires an effort that is correspondingly large. Changes do not happen overnight. As the Hirsch Report noted, it will take up to 20 years to find and install a replacement for the falling world production of oil. Yet the technologies that were advocated in that document, written in 2005, were not that revolutionary.
Besides further oil exploration, there are commercial options for increasing world oil supply and for the production of substitute liquid fuels:
1) Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) can marginally increase production from existing reservoirs; one of the largest of the IOR opportunities is Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which can help moderate oil production declines from reservoirs that are past their peak production:
2) Heavy oil / oil sands represents a large resource of lower grade oils, now primarily produced in Canada and Venezuela; those resources are capable of significant production increases;.
3) Coal liquefaction is a well established technique for producing clean substitute fuels from the world’s abundant coal reserves; and finally,
4) Clean substitute fuels can be produced from remotely located natural gas, but exploitation must compete with the world’s growing demand for liquefied natural gas.
However, world-scale contributions from these options will require 10-20 years of accelerated effort.
And they certainly aren’t being given a crash priority for funding from the Department of Energy. The Department, sadly, still seems to feel, complacently, that there is no critical need to be concerned about fossil fuel supplies, and that it is only the need for precautions to guard against producing too much greenhouse gas that drives the path forward with any urgency. There is nothing about taking enough precautions to protect against fuel shortages in the future.


Well, as I noted the other day, Asian and Third World use of coal is rising very rapidly, so that from that point of view I suspect that the Department is riding a crippled nag that is not going to help keep American industry competitive. Robert Rapier posted, the other week, on the costs of producing a million Btu from various sources. These were his numbers:
Powder River Basin Coal - $0.56
Northern Appalachia Coal - $2.08
Natural gas - $5.67
Ethanol subsidy - $5.92
Petroleum - $13.56
Propane - $13.92
#2 Heating Oil - $15.33
Jet fuel - $16.01
Diesel - $16.21
Gasoline - $18.16
Wood pellets - $18.57
Ethanol - $24.74
Electricity - $34.03
The electricity price is the EIA average retail price to customers. He provides both the sources for the quotes, and the energy conversion rates between fuels. (Powder River Coal from Wyoming runs at 8,800 Btu/lb or thinking of it another way a ton of coal produces 17.6 million Btu). You will note how cheap the coal is.

Is it any wonder that the Chinese are trying to negotiate a 20-year supply of coal from Australia to the tune of around $60 billion. The coal will come from the Galilee Basin in Queensland and will run at 30 million tonnes of coal a year for 20 years.
The China First project will be located in the Galilee Basin region near Alpha, west of the town of Emerald, and will include four underground mines, two surface mines, plus associated handling and processing facilities.

It will be linked to a coal terminal on the Queensland coast at Abbot Point by a new 490 kilometre railway line. The company says the project, which is awaiting final approval by the Queensland government, will create 6,000 jobs during construction and 1,500 when operational.
Some of the confusion in the current press is that while there is a letter of intent and a framework agreement, there is not yet a defined price for the coal.

Again, however, to put that in context, China uses coal both for industrial use (steel making) and for electricity generation with about half going to each at the moment. The EIA anticipates that in 2015 it will use 37 quads for electricity production, 30 quads for industry and 3 for other uses, for a grand total of 70 quads. A quad is a thousand trillion, or a million billion Btu’s. Dividing by the 17.6 million Btu’s per ton, means that by 2015 China will be using roughly 4 billion tons of coal a year. (The USA for reference produced 1.46 billion tons in 2008). So the Chinese are going to have a supply (though not that much of their needs) of relatively inexpensive coal. And there is a lot more coal in the Galilee Basin (more than 4.5 billion tons).

Here in the United States one of the current thoughts is to keep investing in ethanol production, which is impacting corn use. For example, of the 11.11 billion bushels total, 5.56 billion bushels go to food, seed and industrial use, 4.3 billion goes to Ethanol; 2 billion bushels to exports; and there are 1.7 billion in year-end stocks. (Note: this table as been corrected, and the source, following the comment below).

The numbers that are being used are measured (coal or corn) in billions. The top producer of corn in the United States last year produced 314 bushels of corn from an acre (the national average last year was 162 bushels/acre so to produce that much ethanol requires a lot of acres. And it has taken a significant amount of time to plan, fund and install the refineries – and in poor economic times some of those have gone bankrupt.

But we are not looking for innovative fossil fuel production, this complacency flies in the face of an increasing number of voices, Richard Branson being one of the latest, who have discovered that we don’t have 20-years. His figure for Peak Oil is five years. That may be optimistic, and may be within the continued term of an Obama Administration. So how are they preparing?

Realistically they aren’t. What they are funding cannot be brought to the level of production that can have any impact on supply within the five or ten year period. And when the crisis comes you can’t find the answer in the short term by just throwing money at it, and getting the fast result (the baby model).

As they say, life is going to get interesting. (Wait a minute, wasn’t that part of some curse or other?)

Read more!