The petrol pump's running dry

Whilst Peak Oil is rapidly becoming mainstream with Joe public, amazingly the government seems to still be in denial. Malcolm Wicks, in response to questions put in the House of Commons Debate on Oil Prices, stated that "the huge increase in the price of a barrel of oil has caught the whole world by surprise and we are in, frankly, difficult and uncharted waters."

Whilst it is true we are in unchartered waters, the rise in price has been anticipated ever since Hubbert first came out with his theory on Peak Oil back in the 1950's. Unfortunately, our government has been basing their policies on forecasting of increase of oil prices to $70 - in 2020! So, no suggestion of reduced supplies there then. How is this possible? Oil is a finite resource, we are now in a position that what little remains out there is more difficult to get at and thus extraction will prove ever more expensive, not only in financial terms but also environmental costs. Thing is, Peak Oil is not a difficult concept to grasp. The tank is running dry, and as one clever bod put it, we are now trying to suck out the remaining dregs that have soaked into the pub carpet (a rather disgusting analogy, but oh so graphically pertinent). Market economics dictate that as a finite source dries up, so it's price will escalate. Mr Wicks and Mr Brown seem to be under the impression that "the solution is increased production". But of what? Certainly not oil.

Mr Wicks, have a look at peak oil.com, although you may experience delays. Spotted on their website by my mate Marm, is their new posting:

Welcome new visitors!

The site is responding slowly due to an influx of thousands of new visitors, so expect delays until our upgrades are in place.

Thanks for your patience.

When will our Government wake up to the Energy Crisis?

This is belated blogging. But I suppose that is the beauty of blogging - you can get back to it when you have time. The last month or so I have been pretty much out of the loop of things, but I'm now back on full(ish) form, with news to tell of what I've been getting to here in London that's worth noting.

So, last week I attended the Praseg Annual Conference with my TREC hat on to get all and sundry up to speed on Concentrating Solar Power. The added bonus is of course the chance to sit in on various MP's waxing lyrical on their (sometimes not so) green credentials. One MP did stand out however: Phil Woolas MP.

This is a man who really seems to get it. In fact it is the first time I have heard a mainstream-ish Labour MP (outside the lone voices of climate change reason; Colin Challen and Michael Meacher) voluntarily raise his own views on Peak Oil. It is after all part of his remit as DEFRA Minister for the Environment; he has responsibility for climate change, energy and the environment. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear his take. 12 months ago, he admitted, he would pay lip service to Climate Change. Now, he says, anyone who does not get it is in denial. "Well, it’s just happening, you can feel it - and see it all around the world." Yes, you do, I thought - you've grasped the urgency of the situation.

"UK economic activity accounts for 15% emissions worldwide", he went on to say (note: this is a rarely alluded to fact by our government, so well done in not sidestepping this unattractive but vitally important fact), "2% of which comes directly from within our shores. Technology transfer and a global carbon market is required – and we must include rainforests. It is wrong to assume it’s all China – my experience is that China gets the point and is addressing it."

On the Kyoto Protocol: "What concerns me is if there is not an international agreement at Copenhagen (Dec. 2009 is the date for the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen and projected completion of UN post-Kyoto deal). I fear they will say - forget it, we will do what we have to do. But not many people are looking at the big picture. When canvassing last week, not many asked me to increase our Kyoto commitments."

On Peak Oil: "Peak Oil is a symbol of all our other rapidly depleting resources. We are running out, we can’t keep on living as if we have three planets. This is a profound challenge to us."

So, a man who talks the talk - but do we have a government who will walk the walk? The other morning when interviewed about escalating energy prices, our Prime Minister Gordon Brown on radio 4's Today programme claimed the solution was that we just need to get out there and "find more oil". Does he not know that we are, if not yet at Peak Oil pretty much on our way? The problem is, if the current escalation of energy prices to $126 a barrel are not attributable to peak oil, what will it be like when we are on the rapid downhill slalome race of declining output? This time last year oil was $75 per barrel and the lone voices predicting a hit of $100 per barrel by 2010 were viewed as extremists. Recent history demonstrates that even those with a bit of foresight were being too conservative in their estimates. As David Strahan said the other week at our WISE Women Speaker Event - we ain't seen nothing yet.

But there is a further layer of complication to add to the decline in global energy resources. We have our own homegrown decline in energy resources to contend with here in the UK. We have a swathe of opted-out old coal stations that must, as directed under EU legislation, be closed by the end of 2016. Some are already working on limited capacity. Add to this the end-of-life of most of our nuclear stations (some of which are now working at very limited capacity, and when working at full capacity only accounts for at best 3.8% of our energy requirements. A dip in the ocean, you might say, in terms of what is required post 2016), and a picture emerges of a rather rapidly growing energy gap here in the UK which we have not been preparing for. By my simple calculations, if we say energy descent kicks in by 2010 at a conservative 3% per annum (peak oil puts additional strain on other finite resources), that makes an energy deficit of 18% by the end of 2016, before taking into account the UK energy gap dip of roughly 32% of our own capacity. That makes a remarkable 50% energy deficit within 8 years.

So my calculations may be very simplistic (and possibly wrong - I am no expert forecaster). The slide above interestingly demonstrates the UK energy gap as approximately 32% reduction of capacity, with oil being completely factored out by end of 2016. Either way - there is a substantial UK energy gap that does not seem be addressed. Bill McKibben famously said in his book The End of Nature; until we feel the fear in our bellys, we will fail to act. How may more MP's need to feel that fear before they act?

WISE Women: Women in Sustainability and the Environment

Calling all green ladies out there...WISE Women is a new network I have formed to bring together women who are working in, are concerned about and want to do more about sustainability and the environment. Please come join us.

First Speaker Event
Our first Speaker Event tackles one of the most pressing issues of our day: Peak Oil. We know it's running out, we know it's soon, but how do we make sense of it all and why is our government failing to address our pending energy crisis?

David Strahan, award-winning investigative journalist, documentary film-maker and author of The Last Oil Shock will unravel these and other issues surrounding the imminent extinction of Petroleum Man + Woman.

What: Peak Oil
Where: The Hub 5 Torrens Street, London EC1V 1NQ
When: Tuesday 29th April 2008, 6.30pm - 8pm
Cost: £5 on the door

1 male guest allowed per member subject to availability (chaps, you are welcome to attend, but you do have to be a guest of a female member)

RSVP: events@wisewomen.me.uk

Joining WISE Women
If you would like to become a member of WISE Women and subscribe to further events please complete your details on our website: Join WISE Women

www.wisewomen.me.uk

Related Blog links:
Energy Crisis
Richard Heinberg on Peak Oil

The Transition Handbook

This is for Catherine, whom I hope will be inspired to set up our own Transition Initiative...

Rob Hopkins is the founder of the Transition movement, creating the fertile ground (literally as well as metaphorically) to generate the growth of communities that are resilient and able to embrace peak oil and climate change. He bridges the gap between the individual and the government, and provides an alternative and inclusive approach, one which enables people to work together to explore solutions on a credible scale. Just published, the Transition Handbook, explains the why and how it can be done.

And what a remarkable book it is. So good it kept me up all night until I had finished it, then bought more copies which have already been dished out (the only other book I seem to do this with on a regular basis is David Strahan's The Last Oil Shock. Both are top must-reads). It is a seminal text for our times. I'll wager that this will prove to be one of the most dynamic and important social movements of the 21st Century.

The Transition Handbook is all about the potential to progress and develop resilience within our communities, to adapt to the energy crisis whilst respecting the earth we live on. For me, it has help reshape my vision of our future on a community level and demonstrated the importance of inclusivity and strong support networks. This book is no wishy washy green-love-in. It's about business and life as we want it for a future that is in balance with our planet. One to read, reread and act upon.

transitiontowns.org
Transition Culture
Community Action

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

Film Preview of A Crude Awakening

Yesterday my mate Jeremy Smith (former editor of the Ecologist - so, a guy who knows his megawatts from his terrawatts) phoned on spec to see whether I'd be interested in joining him for a preview screening of a Peak Oil film and Q&A with the directors afterwards. Excellent, I said, I'm on my way. The film, A Crude Awakening, is to be released nationally on the 9th Nov.

So off I zooted to the Everyman cinema, fully expecting an audience of the great and good from Hampstead's energy royalty (David Strahan lives close by, as does Dr David Flemming, and the irascible Meyer Hillman - and given the size of some of the homes up on the hill, no doubt a whole clutch of oil magnates). Instead, it was a random audience made up of what seemed to be general passers by (that's how Jeremy happened to be invited - he was just walking along South Bank the previous evening). They were, we were promised, looking forward to a challenging debate in the Q &A session afterwards. Hmmm. If that was the case, where were the experts? This audience was largely comprised of concerned individuals picked randomly off the street.

Not wanting to spoil a good story, nevertheless let me tell you about my experience.
The first three quarters of the film has some stonking good footage of Baku oil fields and of a woman at her dressing table with all manner of things flying through the air (including her clothes!) to demonstrate what items are reliant on oil for their production. This and more is cut with various weighty talking heads from Colin Cambell to Matt Savinar (who seems to be in the process of future proofing himself with stacks of purified canned food boxed up behind him) to a range of retired oil experts, geologists, scientists and even some footage of Hubbert, the original whistleblower in the oil industry who predicted 50 years ago that oil would peak about now. The story of oil and our reliance on it is told - and told effectively.

But - it's a big but - the film then moves onto possible solutions, and wham! it seems to literally run out of energy. A slow trot through the (valid) problems with hydrogen, biomass, nuclear. Weirdly no mention of coal, and a petering out with a passing reference to solar. All a rather bleak picture which left most of the audience depressed and feeling rather hopeless.

So this was strange - a film made by a journalist who had clearly done his homework (after all that's what you do, isn't it, when you go off and make a film?) - to a certain extent, then stopped short of examining what possible solutions there out there. Well, if you have been following my blog, you know that one of my passions is Concentrating Solar Power, which to me seems to provide a huge solution. This wasn't touched on at all and I wanted to know why.

Before I even did so, it came up, and to my surprise a stock answer was given that I have often heard given before - one that often comes from oil men and nuclear supporters: that solar is the key, it's just too expensive and will take forty years of research and development. This is strange, simply because it is not correct.

Firstly, I pointed out, the technology is out there. It is mature, tried and tested technology that has been around for 30 years. Commercial-scale plants have been operating in California since the mid 1980s and are still supplying electricity to about 100,000 homes. (In fact, versions of CSP have been tried since the late 19th century, not counting Achimedes' attempts to set the Roman navy ablaze). There are also sites here in Europe (in Spain) and plants are due to be rolled out in various sunbelt countries. Electricity can be transmitted economically for three thousand kilometres or more via a Supergrid of HVDC of lines (on pylons or laid underground or under the sea). With this technology, transmission losses are no more than about 3% per 1000 km. Cost wise it is already looking to be cost-effective against the soaring oil prices (which as I write have now hit $96 per barrel - they say it will reach $100 by end of next year, but it looks set to be far sooner than that). It has been estimated that only 113 km x 113 km of desert covered in mirrors would supply all the electricity needs for the whole of Europe - that is, in desert terms, a tiny fraction of available space (and available sun). You can find out more at concentratingsolarpower.info and on the TREC-UK website.

"Well, hey what do I know, I'm just a journalist" was the response I got. Someone made the point that if such momentous a message is to be told they have a duty to give a happy ending. Maybe a happy ending is asking too much, but he had a point. At the very least a responsible examination of possible solutions would have been welcome.

Well, if they aren't prepared to do something about it I am. I leave for Seville today and the reason I am going there is to attend a conference on CSP. I want to know just how viable CSP is, just how big it can go and how soon. We need big solutions as well as small, and CSP could be just that. Watch this space - I will be reporting back live from the conference.

A Crude Awakening

TREC-UK

concentratingsolarpower.info

[photo credits of Baku oil fields: State Archives of Azerbaijan Republic, Stanley Greene, Sezin Aytuna, Mark Lewandowski]

Peak oil - it's already happened.

Sometimes there seems to be a convergence of unrelated activities, that nevertheless have a greater collective bearing than the sum of their parts. To me, the past seven days demonstrated such a synchronicity between the looming energy and environmental crises as they draw closer.

In the same week as oil prices hit over $90 a barrel, and share prices on both slides of the Atlantic went into freefall, a clarion call to act came from a group of energy experts. The respected German Energy Watch Group published a much needed independent report on our remaining oil reserves (EWG Oil Report). Unlike most other future mapping reports (such as the fair-weather approach of the IEA), this analysis does not rely on unverifiable and unreliable reserve data. Rather the analysis is based primarily on production data. It concludes that world oil production had in fact peaked in 2006.

Production, it says, will start to decline at a rate of several percent per year. By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. So what of it? Well, this steep resource depletion will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame. Crude oil is the most important energy carrier at a global scale. All kinds of transport relies heavily on oil and the future oil availability is of paramount importance as it entails completely different actions by politics, business and individuals. With a 3 - 7% decline per annum, the UK's proposed 4% plug by nuclear by 2025 is woefully inadequate. A matter of too little too late. By my simple reckoning, at the most conservative estimate, we are looking at a 54% decline by 2025, almost 70% by 2030. Peak oil is now they say, but in the UK our government and the energy industry seems to be in denial - what Jeremy Leggett, Solarcentury CEO and former member of the British Government’s Renewables Advisory Board, calls "institutional denial".

Remaining world oil reserves are estimated to be 1,255 Gb (Giga barrel) according to the industry database HIS (2006). For the Energy Watch Group (EWG), however, there are sound reasons to modify these figures for some regions and key countries, leading to a corresponding EWG estimate of 854 Gb. The report concludes that world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system, a change that will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life. Climate change will also force humankind to change energy consumption patterns by reducing significantly the burning of fossil fuels. Our way of dealing with energy issues will have to change fundamentally.

The point is made that we are now entering a period of transition. A period which will probably has its own rules which are valid only during this phase. Things might happen which we never experienced before and which we may never experience again once this transition period has ended.

Just as oil prices ebb and flow before it's own tsunami breaks, so too do our climate warnings. It was reported that absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the North Atlantic ocean has plunged by half in the last ten years. This of course has major implications: one of the world’s main carbon sinks is, for a reason that scientists can not explain, breaking down. The just released Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) UNEP report is equally hard hitting in outlook and serves to underline the fact that the world does not face separate crises - the “environmental crisis”, “development crisis”, and “energy crisis”. They are infact all one.

The question is, what sort of framework should be and could be put in place? To that end, I trotted off to hear Jonathon Porritt speak at the RSA . He proffers a workable framework: Capitalism as if the World Matters. Like Jeremy Leggett, he recognises the lack of readiness of governments and industry to engage and suggests that the pending oil crisis will focus minds. He believes that there is a case and an opportunity for capitalism to become sustainable, providing it is also equitable. The environment and society, sustainability and social equity - these are the cornerstones of our future, if we are to have a future. You can listen to what he said here: podcast of Jonathon Porritt at the RSA

And who's going to take up the mantle of this good leadership? At governmental level, in the UK The Environmental Audit Committee has just called for a Climate Minister to have overall responsibility for co-ordinating the Climate Change Programme and a Climate Change and Energy Secretariat, with the duty to provide clear political leadership on climate change. That strikes me as an eminently sensible and vital first step. How long will it be until this is done?

I shall be off to Seville at the end of the week - a 24 hour train journey each way. It should give me ample time to read the newly revised and updated Capitalism as if the World Matters .

For other recent podcast interviews with various experts on Peak Oil see David Strahan's short and pithy interviews at
The Last Oil Shock

oil price graph: Cleantech Collective

Energy Crisis

There seems to be a chill wind blowing these last few days - one which I cannot seem to inure myself against. I've mulled over how to blog for a few days now, and decided that although my focus is predominantly on the positive, sometimes it's impossible to ignore those moments where progress seems for whatever reason to have stalled.

Last week's Energy and Planning White Papers gave no cause for joy. Indeed, consisting mainly of reiteration of this government's current positioning, they seem to pose more questions than offer solutions. What could have been a prime opportunity to demonstrate leadership in taking steps to addressing our pending energy crisis was effectively sidestepped. Now with 17 EU countries adopting feed-in tariffs to kick-start their markets for microgeneration, we - a country that is just about to enter into net-import of our energy supplies - still refuses to give any form of assistance. Ah, there is one exception. The grand gesture of a one-off supplemental payment of £12 million under the Low Carbon Buildings Scheme - which will doubtless be fully utilised within a week, if earlier applications are anything to go by. Indeed, the largest PV company in the UK is currently looking at laying off staff. And this is a country that, as David Miliband stated this weekend at the Hay Literary Festival, subsidises it's transport sector (read: road expansion) to the tune of £80 million a week. Yes, that's £80 million a week. That's over £4 billion per annum. Mr Miliband, you yourself stated three times that we must take heed of Stern's advice - that to invest in prevention of climate change will be less costly to address now than later. So, Mr Miliband, it begs the question: where is the Climate Change Prevention Pot? There seems to be no evidence of any finances being set aside (or indeed distributed) to assist people in their transition from a fuel based economy to a low carbon economy and controlled energy descent.

There are two good reasons that this needs addressing now. One is that peak oil is about to sweep the world into an energy deficit within a matter of but a few years. The second, equally valid reason is that if we continue to hungrily devour our remaining fossil fuels until they are exhausted we have virtually no chance of retaining our greenhouse emissions at 450ppm - and thus leave ourselves at extremely high risk of runaway climate change.

Nuclear is still on the agenda as a solution in the UK, which is no panacea. After all, Nuclear energy in the UK amounts to but a mere 3.6% of our energy supplies. Even with 100% increase in efficiency, and the first of the new generation being rolled out in 2016 at the earliest, it's going to be a matter of too little too late. With energy deficits of 3 - 5% annually from possibly as early as 2010, this seems at best an ill-thought out plan. It's been calculated that for every £1 invested in renewables equates to £7 investment in Nuclear for the same amount of energy (remember - this is a government that says it will not subsidise Nuclear but will leave it up to market forces. So, who exactly is going to back such an expensive and dangerous venture?). The figures do not add up, especially when other long-term global solutions exist, such as Concentrating Solar Power which would supplement and complement large scale renewable projects as well as decentralised solutions such as microgeneration. This government talks about there being no one solution (true) but it is doing very little to give support to any but the one solution that is the least attractive of all. There is of course Russia - they could give us oil, coal, gas, uranium. All those juicy carbon emitters - and all from a country that all too recently proved it was perfectly capable of flexing it's muscles and turning off the tap whenever suits. Problem is, there is no coherent national strategy, no demonstration of a viable energy policy - at a time when governmental leadership is not just a political but a a moral imperative.

David Strahan, in his thoroughly researched and thoroughly readable book The Last Oil Shock poses the most pertinent of conundrums. Running out of oil should at least be good for climate change, you might think - but the reverse could be true. A growing shortfall of global oil production is likely to send the crude price skywards, and a mad dash to fill the gap could bring even higher carbon emitting alternatives. Strahan examines the most up-to-date evidence, presents the hard facts and proffers some potential future scenarios. Read it and decide for yourself.

The mood of environmentalists has changed. George Monbiot also spoke at Hay, and there was a sense of exigency, a darker tonality that I had not detected before. He was to speak on Solutions, but changed his content on the day. He warned of his concern about our pending energy crisis. His request was for us to become active citizens. Action that is lacking from the top - from our government - must come from the people now. He urges us all to go demand from our MP's that strong action be taken. Time to prepare for our future is now - and we need our government (and all governments) more than ever to help set out a clear road map to navigate the stormy times ahead.


* David Strahan, The Last Oil Shock, 2007, published by John Murray Ltd
* Interactive Oil Depletion Atlas
* What Stern Really Got Wrong, David Strahan, Prospect, May 16th 2007
* George Monbiot, Comment is Free: Our blind faith in oil growth could bring the economy crashing down