x MISCELLANEOUS

Nicole's message to Tasmania

Mar 272012

In March Peak Oil Tasmania was pleased to co-host a visit to Tasmania by Canadian writer and systems analyst Nicole Foss, who presented at two lively lectures in Hobart and Launceston. Foss has become an expert in the complex global financial and energy systems and focuses a lot of her work on the pressing problem of oil depletion.

Thanks to Hobart climate science writer, Peter Boyer, below is his overview of what Nicole had to say:

Looking the future in the eye

by Peter Boyer

“The chances of us getting through the next decade without significant economic damage are zero”…Nicole Foss [27 May 2012 | Peter Boyer]

Everyone, I’m sure, agrees that some big changes lie ahead. Climate and energy are in the mix, as are governments and economies. All very important, but I reckon that your central concern is much closer to home.

I’m guessing that when you think about your future, uppermost in your mind (as in mine) is the physical and financial wellbeing of you and those close to you. The neighbourhood we call home and the people we share it with remain our principal focus. It’s part of being human.

In tough times our home focus is stronger than ever. This was brought home to me in Hobart earlier this month when a softly-spoken Canadian named Nicole Foss held listeners spellbound as she mapped out her vision of where our current global financial difficulties are taking us.

Foss, who writes under the name Stoneleigh on the blogsite The Automatic Earth, has a background in biology, pollution control, finance and international law — a pretty clear pointer to a mind that ranges far and wide. In that respect at least, she didn’t disappoint her two Tasmanian audiences.

Foss provided a pretty full run-down of what it takes to develop resilience to future shock. She might have added one more item — sitting through one of her lectures without collapsing in utter despair. Even if you take on board only a small part of her message, this is pretty tough medicine.

Here’s a sampler of what she had to say:

    • The world is now experiencing the biggest financial bubble in history. In keeping with the size of the bubble, its inevitable bursting will bring on a major depression and an energy crisis.

    • Markets are neither rational nor efficient, and are driven by perception, not reality. Prices are determined not by any economic fundamentals but simply by what people are prepared to pay.

    • Emotions are catching. When markets are steeply rising we tend to be euphoric; when they’re collapsing we’re driven by fear. Fear being a very sharp emotion, in the wake of a burst bubble we get an extremely rapid decline. That means we’re headed for the worst crash in history.

    • It’s already begun. With those at the top of the financial food chain grabbing for their share of collateral, we’re seeing a spread of fear, which will increase sharply in the next few years. In these circumstances, public policy gets completely overtaken by events.

    • Credit (currently 95 per cent of the total money supply) is the main driver of today’s bubble. Where it once boosted GDP by supporting productive business, credit has been used for personal luxuries or for gambling on market futures, while creating the illusion that this is real wealth.

    • The credit bubble is something like a giant game of musical chairs where there’s one chair to every 100 people. So long as the music keeps playing we don’t notice the acute chair deficit. When it stops, only those best positioned to understand the rules of the game will remain viable.

    • While Australia has a low public debt to GDP ratio, its household and financial institution debt burden is among the highest in the world as a proportion of GDP, which makes it more vulnerable than we might think to a credit crunch.

    • The global energy market did not trigger this crisis, but it will play a big part in its aftermath. Financial disruption will see spikes in oil prices, adding to general volatility. In the longer term, as oil extraction becomes more expensive, oil shortages will make economic recovery more difficult.

    • The scale of the present financial crisis is beyond the capacity of governments and financial institutions to resolve. While they will seek to retain central control, inevitably it will devolve to regional and smaller units as global trade slows and local resources take on greater value.

    • We need to resist the urge to blame someone else, and to think constructively about how we can best manage this situation for both our personal benefit and — just as important — the benefit of our communities.

    • This brings opportunities to foster a more decentralised economy, drawing more on local skills and resources and less dependent on large-scale trade or government programs.

    • In doing so we must work with others, because we cannot get through the coming hard times alone, and that brings numerous benefits. We don’t have to live like kings or queens; in living a simpler life, more focused on community, we can rediscover what it means to be human.

There are some caveats to all this. Though a long-time student of global finance, Foss is neither an economist nor a psychologist. Professionals in either of these fields, and no doubt many others, may thus conclude that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

We should be careful about such conclusions. Any wise economist or psychologist will tell you that our future economic and social wellbeing involves understanding well beyond the scope of any particular profession’s tools of trade. Foss has much to contribute to this complex debate.

(Peter Boyer writes a weekly climate education column in the Hobart Mercury and manages the website Climate Tasmania. Foss’s visit was co-hosted by UTAS Sustainability and Peak Oil Tasmania. See HERE for background notes on Nicole Foss.) You can listen to a local radio interview (106.5 FM) HERE.

For those interested, we recorded the question and answer section here: This runs for an hour so sit back!

Nicole Foss in Hobart

Jan 272012

Peak Oil, Local Resilience and Financial Crisis:

13th March 2012
7:00pm – 9.30pm
Stanley Burbury Lecture Theatre

(If you missed this event you can hear Nicole on local radio by clicking on this link)

A Public Lecture with Nicole Foss, Co-Editor of The Automatic Earth

An impending global crisis? Many assure us there is.
What are the issues and opportunities for Tasmania?

How can we prepare and respond to ensure we ‘keep the lights on’ both metaphorically and physically?

Come and explore the interrelated issues of finance, energy, resources, environment, psychology, population and real politik that make up our current multi-faceted predicament.

An explanation of why we find ourselves in a state of crisis and what we can do about it.

Hosted by UTAS Sustainability Unit
Click here for more information.
RSVP (UTAS): UTAS.Events@utas.edu.au or phone 6226 2521;
Enquiries – Fiona Brodribb – fiona.brodribb@utas.edu.au

Some background to Nicole Foss

Nicole M. Foss is co-editor of The Automatic Earth, where she writes under the name Stoneleigh. She and her writing partner have been chronicling and interpreting the on-going credit crunch as the most pressing aspect of our current multi-faceted predicament. The site integrates finance, energy, environment, psychology, population and real politik in order to explain why we find ourselves in a state of crisis and what we can do about it. Prior to the establishment of TAE, she was previously editor of The Oil Drum Canada, where she wrote on peak oil and finance.

Foss runs the Agri-Energy Producers’ Association of Ontario, where she has focused on farm-based biogas projects and grid connections for renewable energy. While living in the UK she was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, where she specialized in nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and conducted research into electricity policy at the EU level.

Her academic qualifications include a BSc in biology from Carleton University in Canada (where she focused primarily on neuroscience and psychology), a post-graduate diploma in air and water pollution control, the common professional examination in law and an LLM in international law in development from the University of Warwick in the UK. She was granted the University Medal for the top science graduate in 1988 and the law school prize for the top law school graduate in 1997.

Nicole Foss in Launceston

Jan 272012

Peak Oil, Local Resilience and Financial Crisis

15th March 2012
7:00pm – 8.30pm
Lecture Theatre 9, Faculty of Arts Building (map)
Newnham campus

(If you missed this event you can hear Nicole on local radio by clicking on this link)

A Public Lecture with Nicole Foss, Co-Editor of The Automatic Earth

An impending global crisis? Many assure us there is.
What are the issues and opportunities for Tasmania?

How can we prepare and respond to ensure we ‘keep the lights on’ both metaphorically and physically?

Come and explore the interrelated issues of finance, energy, resources, environment, psychology, population and real politik that make up our current multi-faceted predicament.

An explanation of why we find ourselves in a state of crisis and what we can do about it.

Hosted by UTAS Sustainability Unit
Click here for more information.
RSVP (UTAS): UTAS.Events@utas.edu.au or phone 6226 2521;
Enquiries – Fiona Brodribb – fiona.brodribb@utas.edu.au

Some background to Nicole Foss

Nicole M. Foss is co-editor of The Automatic Earth, where she writes under the name Stoneleigh. She and her writing partner have been chronicling and interpreting the on-going credit crunch as the most pressing aspect of our current multi-faceted predicament. The site integrates finance, energy, environment, psychology, population and real politik in order to explain why we find ourselves in a state of crisis and what we can do about it. Prior to the establishment of TAE, she was previously editor of The Oil Drum Canada, where she wrote on peak oil and finance.

Foss runs the Agri-Energy Producers’ Association of Ontario, where she has focused on farm-based biogas projects and grid connections for renewable energy. While living in the UK she was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, where she specialized in nuclear safety in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and conducted research into electricity policy at the EU level.

Her academic qualifications include a BSc in biology from Carleton University in Canada (where she focused primarily on neuroscience and psychology), a post-graduate diploma in air and water pollution control, the common professional examination in law and an LLM in international law in development from the University of Warwick in the UK. She was granted the University Medal for the top science graduate in 1988 and the law school prize for the top law school graduate in 1997.

The problems with alternative energy

Aug 152011

The table below illustrates a very important principle – there is no free lunch in energy supply.

Whereas each of us has our own preferences about different energy sources, each energy source has its peculiar set of problems. Some may cause less environmental harm or harm to humans, but even these ‘softer’ technologies can cause major contention and may not be able to deliver the type of energy that is in demand.

For instance, an energy source that delivers a surplus of electricity may not be all that useful if our immediate energy problem is shortage of liquid fuels.

[Note that EROEI (right hand column) stands for energy return on energy invested.]

Energy source Problems Nominal EROEI
Firewood Although firewood enjoys a very high net energy return (EROEI), unregulated firewood collections has caused much habitat damage in Tasmania. Requires a firewood production regime, including firewood farming allotments. Firewood burning can also cause significant local pollution and health problems in certain environments. Note that the high net energy return (at right) applies only to burning firewood directly to create heat – not to be confused with burning firewood for electricity production, net energy return is closer to that of brown coal (8). 32
Hydro-electricity Net energy return (EROEI) for hydro is very site specific, depending on construction needs, such as amount of concrete and earth fill etc. EROEI can be up to 200 for a simple run-of-river scheme, less than 30 for a remote dam built in very difficult terrain. Although a renewable energy source, its greenhouse emissions can be very high where significant vegetation or soil carbon is inundated, especially rainforests. Ecological damage can range from disruption of fish habitat, to destruction of ecosystems, to loss of wilderness, to alteration of downstream river ecology. 20
Geothermal Release of polluting gases (SO2, H2S,); water requirement; groundwater pollution by chemicals including heavy metals; seismic effects; significant transmission infrastructure required for small output, most potential sites being far from where electricity is used. 8
Wind farms Main problem is bird strike. Also resources to provide transmission infrastructure to dispersed sites spread over a wide area and their consequent visual intrusion of landscapes. There has also been much public opposition to despoilation of natural vistas and purported effects on TV reception and, in some sites, subtle effect on human health, resulting from noise frequency. 9
Solar photovoltaics Use of toxic materials in manufacture of PV cells; delivers energy at very high cost per kilowatt-hour; visual intrusion in both rural and urban environments; all input energy is at the front end, before any power is produced…. long payback period. 7
Nuclear High level of public fear; potential catastrophic accidents; radioactive waste disposal problem unresolved; potential misuse of fissile material by terrorists; potential contribution to nuclear weapons proliferation; high water requirement; at least 10 years needed for planning approval and construction. 7
Natural gas Greenhouse pollution; pipe leakage; methane explosions 10
Coal seam gas Greenhouse pollution; serious poisoning of aquifers and drinking water; intrusion on private lands and human rights; landscape scarring. 4
Coal Serious greenhouse pollution; environmental spoliation by open-cut mining; land subsidence due to deep mining; spoil heaps; groundwater pollution; acid rain; damage to agricultural lands. The EROEI of 30 (at right) = coal burned for industrial heat as opposed to 9 = coal burned for electricity production. 9 and 30
Oil Serious greenhouse pollution; world demand exceeding supply; resource wars in oil supply regions; marine and terrestrial damage from oil spills; exploitation of ethnic people in major oil regions (eg Nigeria); net energy return from oil wells now averages at only 15, as opposed to best quality oil in the world (Libya) at 100 17
Bio-fuels Significant competition with food production; impacts on landscapes and biodiversity; groundwater pollution from fertilisers; use of scarce water; significant chemical pollution from burning emissions. Best source of bio-fuels is by-products from wastes and food crops, but volume of these are strictly limited. 3
Oil shale Very serious greenhouse pollution; very serious local land degradation and local pollution. 3
Tar sands Very serious greenhouse pollution; very serious local land degradation and local pollution. 4


The EROEI figures given above are illustrative and derived from a number of sources. They give a general guide to the net energy return on energy invested, but this may have no bearing on total amount of potential energy available from any one source.

What about new alternative energy sources?

Although potential technologies have their hard core enthusiasts, none of them is, as yet, proven up so that they actually work and deliver a net return of energy in any particular setting. Some of them may never be. Such sources include nuclear fusion power, solar collectors in space, liquid fuels derived from ocean algae, integrated fast nuclear (fission) reactors, wave power, tidal power.

The history of development of energy technologies tells us that the forecast net energy return of new technologies tends to be overestimated (and capital costs underestimated) by a factor of two, as a result of wishful thinking on the part of enthusiastic developers. But the really core problem is that the global energy crisis is upon us now and we can’t wait for decades for solutions to be developed several decades into the future.

In summary

The aim of this summary is not to champion any energy source over any other, it is simply to illustrate that there is no free lunch in energy supply.

Pitted against all of these energy sources (many of them very costly) is a very basic strategy: using less of it. Living more comfortably with less energy wastage. Running our energy economy much more efficiently.

In nearly every situation the financial, environmental and social burden is much reduced, costs to business are lower and public acceptability is higher.

References
    The nine challenges of renewable energy (download – 1.5meg)

    Hydroelectric dams and global warming: A little understood aspect of hydro dams is their potential significant contribution to global warming, as reported by the World Commission on Dams. Although methane emissions from Tasmanian dams are far less than those in tropical areas, this reference is included simply to provide background information on this topic.

How to approach your local council

Jul 152011

by Chris Harries

How can your local council respond to peak oil in the best possible way?

Some councils are large and well resourced. Others less so. Some have progressive councillors elected. Some may have already taken steps to address the issue. Most have not done so yet. Some will be much more impacted by high fuel prices than will others.

In short, no one-way-fits-all. So here you go in 7 easy steps:

Remember: Approaching your local government representative is not as forbidding as you may think. Most people have an elected councillor living somewhere in or near their neighbourhood. They are normally quite friendly and approachable and (even where they may disagree with you) will listen, provided that you approach him/her in a courteous, respectful manner.

Here is a sample motion that can be put to any council:

    That a report be prepared to examine the potential impacts of Peak Oil on:

    1) Council’s operations
    2) Local businesses
    3) Local ratepayers

    That the report further examine some of the policies and practices of leading councils in addressing Peak Oil and report on their potential to be used for the benefit of the council and the community.

Peak Oil Forum – July 2

Jun 082011

This forum was a follow-up to a successful public forum held in 2010. Since then it has become evident that the most responsive arm of government to pressing oil depletion issues has been local government, which has close links with affected communities and businesses.

The forum attracted 80 people, including many local government representatives. A summary of proceedings can be downloaded HERE and a DVD is also available.

Meanwhile, if you would like to be put onto our update list, please click HERE.

Tasmanian Government’s Peak Oil Study

Jun 022011

by David Hamilton

[This article refers to the Tasmanian government's Oil Price Vulnerability Study, currently being conducted]

Why supply is an issue too.

The Background Info section of this web site explains that oil fields inevitably decline, and since peak discovery was in 1964, global oil supply will shortly enter an inevitable decline – the “second half of the Age of Oil”. Thus, reduced availability will be an absolute constraint: oil will simply become increasingly unavailable, regardless of price.

Put simply, the fact of peak oil means the end of business as usual.

What decline rate is expected?
The rate at which oil fields decline varies from field to field; in addition the companies operating the fields can usually reduce the rate of decline or delay the worst of the decline by spending money trying harder and harder to extract the diminishing amounts of oil left in the field. Predicting the global rate of decline of oil supply once we are clearly past the peak is therefore difficult. Most predictions seem to be in the range 2% to 4% per year, but higher predictions can be found. If the decline is a steady 2% per year, then oil supply will halve every 35 years; if it is a steady 5% per year (at the higher end of the predictions), then oil supply will halve every 14 years.

The time frame for the Tasmanian Oil Price Vulnerability Study is 20 years, so even at the low end of the range of predicted declines, the availability of oil will decrease significantly over the period, as we appear to be already past the absolute peak of oil production. There is a further issue the Oil Price Vulnerability Study is ignoring: whether the oil that is available will be distributed around the world in proportion to how it is currently used. For example, oil exporting countries could decide that they want to slow down the rate at which they export oil to allow a larger buffer for their own use over the years.

What are the implications for oil supply?
Putting these factors together, the outlook for oil supply over the next 20 years is at best a gradual decline of around 2% per year; at worst a larger decline will underlay a tumultuous period which includes rapid changes in availability and conflict over access to oil.

What difference does including supply issues make?
All of us make decisions based on assumptions about the future. When we move house, change jobs, buy cars, we are assuming (perhaps unconsciously) what the future will be like, and often part of that assumption relates to future availability of petroleum fuels: petrol, diesel and jet fuel. A person knowing that price rises were inevitable might decide that given present and expected income and living expenses they could manage the price rises with a slightly smaller or more efficient car, or a bit less travel – life would go on much as at present. If however a person knows that fuel will be subject to occasional severe shortages and will consistently become less available, then they are more likely to decide that the future will be significantly different from the past, and change the decisions they would otherwise make.

Nick Towle et al’s table, below, summarises the differences that considering supply as well as price makes:

A way out of the Peak Oil - Climate Change impasse?

Feb 272011

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


State government peak oil study

Feb 012011

The 2010 Tasmanian budget allocated funds for a $250,000 study that will look into Tasmania’s vulnerability to oil price rises.

Announcing the study, Minister Mr Nick McKim said that it is vital Tasmania prepares for when the supply and price of oil are less certain than they are today. “The key is to do this now, so we will be in the strongest position possible when it happens”, he said.

The study will be undertaken by DIER during 2011 and will consult widely with all stakeholders.

Watch this space for more. Click HERE for goverment media release.

UPDATE: The state government Oil Price Vulnerability Project will be conducting open forums for invited stakeholders on June 9th and June 10. Program Manager is Fiona Howroyd 0406 737 981

Peak Oil versus Climate Change

Jan 012011

by Chris Harries

Question: Which is the more serious problem: climate change or peak oil?

Some say it is peak oil, because that issue will impact much sooner – especially on the poor who won’t be able to afford skyrocketing costs. Others say it is climate change because we are threatening to take the planet’s climate system beyond the tipping point, and then the whole planet will suffer.

Clearly there is no right answer. It’s far more constructive to treat both peak oil and climate change as equally critical. Both can lead to collapse.

Climate change makes it essential that we reduce carbon pollution. Peak oil makes it inevitable that we do. Climate change tells us that we need to act, whereas peak oil may take any choice out of our hands. Peak oil may even motivate politicians to act on climate change, because there is no way of squirming out of it.

In truth, climate change and peak oil are both very serious in their own right, but the two issues are joined at the hip. Only by coupling peak oil and climate change can human society succeed in switching to a sustainable future. If we respond to either without looking at the other then we can just make things worse.

By way of example, if we try to respond to the depletion of world oil supplies by converting our huge coal reserves to liquid fuels, then we may (temporarily) keep all our cars and trucks on the road but that ‘solution’ will put more pollution into the atmosphere and only worsen the climate change problem. (The huge tar sand mines in Alberta, Canada is a gruesome real-life example of this folly.)

Conversely, if we respond to climate change by trying to make renewable energy supply as much energy as coal and oil does, then we will quickly find that such a conversion is impossible because the conversion itself requires immense investment in declining fossil fuel energy that we don’t have. Catch 22! (Manufacturing bio-fuels from crops is a real-life example of this folly – generally speaking it deprives us of land-for-food resources and increases the demand for petro-chemical fertilisers.)

Both problems boil down to energy problems—and energy is essential to the maintenance of agriculture, transportation, communication… and just about everything else that makes up our modern global economy. Fossil fuels are ingrained in our entire infrastructure.

The only way to bridge both peak oil and climate change is to develop a culture shift away from our heavy reliance on fossil fuels and develop what is called the ‘post-carbon economy’. Energy efficiency and deep cultural change have to be the dominant responses to both issues.

To put things in a nutshell, peak oil can be thought of as a ‘what’s in the tank?’ problem and climate change as ‘what comes out of the tail pipe?’ problem (quoting Richard Heinberg). Both of them are to do with the energy we use, both of them require us to look at where we get our energy from, what we use it for and how much we use.

Most importantly, the solution to both problems is a fundamental ‘energy transition’ – that is, a set of policies that reduce both carbon emissions and oil dependence.

The neat logo at left represents the duality that exists between these two critical issues. Interestingly, the logo was devised by David Holmgren, a Tasmanian based initiator / inventor of the huge global Permaculture movement.

Reference:
See Bridging Peak Oil and Climate Change Activism by Richard Heinberg.

Older Entries
© 2011 Peak Oil Tasmania Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha