Uncategorized

Non-OPEC production has likely peaked, oil output could fall by 30 million bpd by 2015

You might think that the recent collapse in oil demand would put off the peak. But the price collapse and global credit crunch mean the reverse is true:

Non-OPEC crude oil production may have already peaked and international oil companies faced the prospect of both younger and older oil fields declining steeply, the firm said in the report released on Wednesday.

Merrill said "the cumulative decline of global oil production from today could amount to 30 million barrels per day by 2015." What does world need to do going forward?

Steep falls in oil production means the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia's production every two years, Merrill Lynch said in a research report.

This matches what the normally conservative and staid International Energy Agency has been saying in recent months (see "Science/IEA: World oil crunch looming? Not if we can find six Saudi Arabias!" and "IEA says oil will peak in 2020").

The global economic recession has cut funding for investment in oil production around the globe. Ironically -- or tragically -- the only thing that can save the world from a return to soaring oil prices by 2010 or 2011 is if economic slowdown turns into "a multi-year event where global oil demand was pushed down structurally for the next five years."

Integrating science with management and policy at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Ecosystem Conference

"I would like to tell our Canadian friends that science is back in the United States of America."

Considering the room was full of scientists -- and the morning's coffee was just kicking in -- perhaps it's no surprise that Puget Sound Partnership Director David Dicks' statement was greeted by thunderous applause. But it also seemed to set the tone for the Puget Sound Georgia Basin Ecosystem Conference in Seattle this week, eliciting a sense of anticipation and optimism that many had been holding back for almost a decade.

Dicks followed his bold assertion about science's big comeback with four key strategies for improving the health of the Salish Sea:

Two more coal plants won't be built, another will switch to biomass

• NV Energy, Inc. announced that it is postponing plans to build a "clean coal" plant in eastern Nevada, citing "environmental and economic uncertainties." This bit is worth noting:

The company will not move forward with construction of the coal plant until the technologies that will capture and store greenhouse gasses are commercially feasible, which is not likely before the end of the next decade.

Meanwhile, they're still building the high-voltage transmission lines that were part of the original plan -- they're just going to use them to carry renewable energy.

• In Ohio, American Electric Power has put plans for an IGCC coal plant on hold, citing the lack of sufficient subsidies "state of the economy." Oh yeah, and the assessment that construction costs will top $2 billion.

Plans for the project have been placed on hold repeatedly, due to cost recovery issues, construction costs and regulatory issues. However, Celona said, AEP has not changed its plans, and still hopes to build here.

I'll hold my breath.

• The University of Wisconsin's Charter Street heating plant, long a target for enviros, has announced that it will no longer be burning coal. It's switching to biomass, mainly wood and agricultural products.

"[It's] taking … heating from the 19th century into the 21st century," [UW Associate Vice Chancellor Alan] Fish said. "It's a more than $200 million investment by the state, and will eliminate the burning of over 100 tons of coal and have the potential to burn 250,000 tons of biomass."

Yes, all the usual criticisms of biomass apply, but at least it's creating electricity and not fueling cars. It's a step.

I could do a post like this every few weeks. Coal is on the ropes in the U.S. Next up: shutting down existing plants!

The NYT magazine doesn't understand renewables, efficiency, energy prices, or green jobs

Reporting on the economics of climate change in this country is terrible, as made clear in the searing new report by leading journalist Eric Pooley.

The NYT economics reporter, David Leonhardt, made a big splash last week with his big piece on the stimulus, "The Big Fix." But like many economics reporters, he is both poorly informed and thoroughly confused about clean energy -- and most every other aspect of energy, as his extended discussion of green jobs makes clear:

Sometimes a project can give an economy a lift and also lead to transformation, but sometimes the goals are at odds, at least in the short term. Nothing demonstrates this quandary quite so well as green jobs, which are often cited as the single best hope for driving the post-bubble economy. Obama himself makes this case. Consumer spending has been the economic engine of the past two decades, he has said. Alternative energy will supposedly be the engine of the future -- a way to save the planet, reduce the amount of money flowing to hostile oil-producing countries and revive the American economy, all at once. Put in these terms, green jobs sounds like a free lunch.

Green jobs can certainly provide stimulus. Obama's proposal includes subsidies for companies that make wind turbines, solar power and other alternative energy sources, and these subsidies will create some jobs. But the subsidies will not be nearly enough to eliminate the gap between the cost of dirty, carbon-based energy and clean energy. Dirty-energy sources -- oil, gas and coal -- are cheap. That's why we have become so dependent on them.

The only way to create huge numbers of clean-energy jobs would be to raise the cost of dirty-energy sources, as Obama's proposed cap-and-trade carbon-reduction program would do, to make them more expensive than clean energy. This is where the green-jobs dream gets complicated.

No, no, and no. Leonhardt would seem to be completely unaware of the fact that in 2008 U.S. wind energy grew by record 8,300 MW. It was responsible for 42 percent of all new U.S. electricity generation installed last year. In fact, two weeks ago, Fortune reported:

McKinstry Company to hire about 500 people in next two to three years

Innovation -- a business model we can believe in.

McKinstry Company is perhaps the most dynamic and interesting company in the Northwest right now. They're earning high-profile attention from President Barack Obama. And even in this economy, they're adding jobs and expanding.

Check it out:

SEATTLE -- Mayor Greg Nickels today presented McKinstry Company with a permit and approved plans for an expansion of its Georgetown facility in south Seattle. The company expects to hire an additional 500 people, a combination of professional and union craftsman, in the next two to three years.

But how can anyone prosper right now?

Well, a big part of the reason for McKinstry's success is that they get it. They get that the current energy economy is broken. They get that we're facing a climate crisis of alarming severity. And they get that a state like Washington shoveled $16 billion out the door in 2008 to pay for fossil-fuel imports.

Consider what David Allen of McKinstry Company said yesterday to the Washington legislature. In testimony before the House Ecology and Parks Committee, he fielded a hostile question about some businesses objecting to the governor's cap-and-invest bill. (Video is here, starting at about 43:15.)

Allen said flatly that McKinstry will be regulated. But he doesn't fear putting a cap on climate pollution.

Allen: "We need to suck it up and get innovative."

The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe

I'm seeing a lot of people passing around a link to this story on TPM, which mocks Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes for saying that the case for man-made warming is "falling apart" but refusing to divulge any of his sources for that seemingly significant piece of info.

At first I just laughed about it, but it occurred to me later that maybe people really don't know the answer to this question -- maybe people really don't know where Barnes is getting his info. The answer is an open secret:

Barnes gets his information on climate change the same place everyone in the right-wing media world gets it: from Marc Morano, the in-house blogger/agitator for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

MacArthur Foundation to fund climate change adaptation network

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is providing $2 million to help ecosystems and human communities adapt to the effects of climate change, it announced last week. The gift is part of a pledge the foundation made last October to invest $50 million toward preserving biodiversity in the face of changing climates. Biodiversity […]

West Antarctic ice-sheet collapse means more catastrophe for U.S. coasts

The fate of Florida and Louisiana if we're myopic and greedy enough to let the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse (click to see entire SE coast).

A new study in Science finds that sea-level rise from a collapse of the WAIS would likely be 25 percent higher for North America than previously estimated:

The catastrophic increase in sea level, already projected to average between 16 and 17 feet around the world, would be almost 21 feet in such places as Washington, D.C., scientists say, putting it largely underwater. Many coastal areas would be devastated. Much of Southern Florida would disappear.

This article has already started to make news around the globe (Reuters story here). But, frankly, divining the difference between a rise of 16.5 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) and 21 feet (an incalculably devastating catastrophe) is like trying to count the number of devils on a pin.

Nonetheless, WAIS collapse is all but inevitable given business-as-usual warming of 5-7°C. As I explained in my book:

Perhaps the most important, and worrisome, fact about the WAIS is that it is fundamentally far less stable than the Greenland ice sheet because most of it is grounded far below sea level.

For a longer discussion of WAIS and its unique instability, see "Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years."

So what is new in the Science article, "The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse" ($ub. req'd)? Study coauthor and geophysicist Jerry X. Mitrovica, director of the Earth System Evolution Program at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, explains:

Getting the story straight in Chicago

In the last 20 minutes, I've read the following reports on the Caterpillar oil spill in Chicago:

"U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer William Mitchell ... says it poses no risk to human health but endangers animals." (Detroit Free Press)

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say it appears no fish or animals were harmed by the spill. Officials say the oil could harm humans." (All Headline News)

"The EPA says there is no evidence the oil has harmed fish or birds and there is no danger for people." (Associated Press)

Well alright then.

Steven Chu's full global warming interview

I previously blogged on the blunt LAT interview that Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave last week.

Now the reporter, Jim Tankersley, has posted online (here) virtually the entire 40-minute interview, Chu's first since being confirmed as secretary. Tankersley notes that:

Chu isn't a climate scientist -- he's a Nobel-winning physicist -- but he's served on several climate-change commissions, and in his position, will be one of President Obama's point men on the climate issue.

Chu has studied the climate science issue for years and talked to many of the leading climate scientists in coming to his conclusions. His full remarks are well worth reading, as a preview of what to come from team Obama and as an extended breath of fresh air after eight long years of high-level Bush Administration denial and muzzling of U.S. climate scientists: