What will we eat when the oil runs out?

What will we eat when the oil runs out? That was the question posed by Richard Heinberg at the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour Memorial lecture held at Westminster Central Hall on Thursday night. Marm' and I decided to chew it over.

Richard Heinberg set out 4 simultaneous dilemmas that we face:
1. higher oil prices with knock-on effect on input and output transport of foodstuffs;
2. increasing demand for bio-fuels thus replacing food for fuel production;
3. extreme climate change events;
4. degredation of natural resources, of top soil and water.

All the above exacerbated by increasing population.

Calculations demonstrate that more food will need to be produced in the next 50 years than in last 1000 years combined. Post WW2, the introduction of herbicides, petro-chemical pesticides brought better living conditions through chemistry - but at a high environmental cost that was only appparent later. Ironically, this era of food expansion was called the Green Revolution. But it was, as we now know a double edged sword. A tripling of food production increased the human carrying capacity, and so we go forth and multiply ever more.

Now we are facing increasing food prices and urban poor will be impacted the most by our modern day dilemmas. Modern agriculture is highly centralised and therefore more vulnerable to disruption. Quite literally, the seams are fit to burst.

Dramatic economic transformation is needed, so says Heinberg. Transition is needed at forced pace with a dramatic increase in local food sufficiency. The government must support return to agricultural life and land reform - look to Cuba: active lobbying of agronomist was crucial.
The primary solution Heinberg proposes is a planned rapid reduction of fossil fuel used for the production of food and the organic movement to provide the necessary framework to guide and lead.

We need to introduce draft animals, oxen are an ideal choice - they do not compete with humans. Not so far fetched: some french towns are introducing horsepower again for local deliveries

Richard Heinberg puts peak oil supply crunch at 2012, with global coal peaking at 2017 - 2020. David Rutledge of Caltech suggests a similar timescale. These two are the best of the American thinkers on the subject - what they say is worthwhile considering seriously. Heinberg is an optimist: we can do it if we start now and we have to start with the organic movement. Time to start growing our own veg.


Richard Heinberg
Podcast: Lady Eve Lecture
For Dave Rutledge's most recent talk on why energy efficiency is not the answer, but reduction of fossil fuels is see: Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question and Climate Change

Clean Coal - too good to be true?

Today sees the release of a report supporting Clean Coal as a low carbon energy solution. I have here as my guest Energy Specialist Neil Crumpton, FOE Campaigner, Climate and Energy Team.

In a nutshell, what is clean coal?
Clean Coal is new coal technology where 90% emissions are capable of being captured and stored underground. A further benefit of Clean Coal is that air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, acid gases, dust and other toxins are much reduced.

What is FOE's position on clean coal?
As long as Clean Coal includes Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) we would be like to see demonstration projects. Clean Coal without CCS is approximately 20% more efficient than existing coal technology. However, without CCS it is still nearly twice as polluting as gas fired power stations and possibly three times as much as Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP). However, Clean Coal WITH CCS can capture 85-90% of the gases emitted, but this still needs demonstrating at large scale.

FOE would like to see a few clean Clean Coal with CCS demonstration schemes, preferably on industrial sites with good CHP potential. Therefore, the benefits of CHP and carbon capture are combined - both would be capable of sharing the same CO2 pipeline and the heat from the power station. A really well designed demonstration scheme on an industrial site could share the CO2 pipeline to an oil field in the North Sea (where the CO2 would be stored) and provide heat from the power station to nearby industrial processes. Hot water from the power station could then be usefully used by local industry.

Is this a better option than renewables?
No, but it could have a supporting role for our interim energy needs. If viable, it could be complementary to renewables in achieving substantial CO2 emission reduction in the short term. It could also potentially be useful in the transition to a low carbon economy based on renewable power over the next decade. Additionally, it could certainly avoid any new nuclear programme as Clean Coal would provide base load generation.

So, would it be correct to say - until Clean Coal test sites incorporating CCS with CHP plants have proven successful, FOE remains cautious?
Yes

The report released today, Clean Coal by Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies controversially states that FOE backs Powerfuel's new test site at Hatfield in Yorkshire. What do you say to that?
We have not even heard of Powerfuel's scheme, let alone supported it. This report completely misquotes our Executive Director Tony Juniper on the merits of renewables in relation to clean coal. This report is simply pro-nuclear anti-renewable propaganda.

Thank you Neil for putting us in the picture.
It's been a pleasure

Friends of the Earth