Fossile fuels to be left unused

[Sir Sirius]

Link

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C

Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins

Nature
517,
187–190
(08 January 2015)
doi:10.1038/nature14016

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times1. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2)2, 3. However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this2, 4, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C. Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions5, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C. Our results show that policy makers’ instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.

Who beliefs that nations with substantial fossile fuel reserves will just leave billions upon billions of dollars worth of resources in the ground? Or that the coal, gas and oil industries will just allow politicians to render their their business models obsolete due to enviromental concerns? I sure as hell don't.

I fear that the fight against global warming will certainly be lost. Infact the 2 °C goal itself is basically throwing in the towel, but it looks like we will unavoidably fail in reaching even that meagre goal.

P.S. Interresting article from The Guardian about the study (too long to be quoted here).

[jwl]

Well, you could make nuclear and other renewables cheap enough that mining fossil fuels becomes uneconomical. Here in the UK coal mines have and are closing down because other sources of fossil fuels are far cheaper. This could be extended to energy in general.

Another idea would be to just slow down the burning of fossil fuels over a long time period, meaning that you could go over 2 degrees eventually but it will happen very slowly, reducing the damage. In that delay, geoengineering may also be developed that solves the problem. You could also have things like tree burying schemes and carbon capture and storage that lock away the carbon as fast as it is being produced.

You could increase the efficiency of plastic manufacture and then increase the volume of plastic produced, meaning all the fossil fuels get turned into plastic before they can get burnt.

Also, note that a large amount of the exploitation of new fossil reserves are gas, which is more efficient than coal and can also be piped straight into buildings for heating, losing the power loss between the station and the building.

[InsaneTD]

Gas can also be manufactured, we don't need to exploit natural reserves when we can make it.

[Darth Tanner]

Gas can also be manufactured, we don't need to exploit natural reserves when we can make it.

It can be manufactured but only as a energy losing storage medium - it can not be manufactured as an energy source and as the majority of our existing energy source is fossil fuel you would be using fossil fuels to make slightly less fossil fuels, a losing proposition.

Here in the UK coal mines have and are closing down because other sources of fossil fuels are far cheaper.

A big problem of that is that largely we are simply importing cheaper Russian coal. What coal plants are shutting are doing so for age or lack of compliance with sulphur emission controls and are being replaced by gas, which is an improvement but not a zero carbon one.

Mass roll out of nuclear, wind and if you have to solar is the only long term solution... how you keep your electricity grid stable when its got too much variable wind on it without large gas resources will be a giant challenge to countries that don't have the hydro resources.

Of course the mass cost overruns and delays of the current attempt at new nuclear are killing its future in Europe.

[jwl]

A big problem of that is that largely we are simply importing cheaper Russian coal.

I know that. That's why I said the next sentence that the principle could be extended to energy in general, if the developments are made to make alternatives cheaper. If russian coal is substantially cheaper than british coal, british coal shuts down. If renewables (incl nuclear) are substantially cheaper than russian coal, russian coal shuts down.

[Irbis]

Who beliefs that nations with substantial fossile fuel reserves will just leave billions upon billions of dollars worth of resources in the ground? Or that the coal, gas and oil industries will just allow politicians to render their their business models obsolete due to enviromental concerns? I sure as hell don't.

Oh, they don't have to be left in the ground. Fossil fuels have many CO2 neutral applications that are of much better use than criminally shortsighted burning them. Sadly, I agree with you, certain country with FRIDUMZ and Frack Baby Frack mentality is pretty much immune to common sense.

Not that Europe is better, pointing finger at USA without mentioning solar snake oil that has to be propped up by fossil fuels and BEATING PUTIN by importing fuel from basket cases far worse than Russia that are at once much farther away and cost more in all respects to import would be hipocritical.

You could also have things like tree burying schemes and carbon capture and storage that lock away the carbon as fast as it is being produced.

Have you tried to look how much oil/coal is extracted yearly and computing how many Amazon jungles we would need to cut down each year to make up for it, how deep we would need to dig to make sure it stays buried, and how much CO2 doing it would release? No? I recommend doing so for laughs then depression. Sadly, fossil fuels are also far denser than wood and drastically denser than liquid CO2 so it would be very optimistic calculation, too.

I know that. That's why I said the next sentence that the principle could be extended to energy in general, if the developments are made to make alternatives cheaper. If russian coal is substantially cheaper than british coal, british coal shuts down. If renewables (incl nuclear) are substantially cheaper than russian coal, russian coal shuts down.

Hahahahaha

No, it means country X coal miners protest and get subsidies as they are big part of electorate/strategical energy source/counter EVIL PUTIN/too big to fail/whatever and the industry continues as if nothing happened.

Really, look up for example coal miners protest in Poland 3 weeks ago. Government capitulated just 2 days after protest started. And yes, the above were all arguments that were used to excuse capitulation.

[Sky Captain]

As long as there is billions upon billions of $ profit to be made by mining and using fossil fuels they will be used. Only way how to prevent that from happening is to have alternative energy source that is significantly cheaper than cheapest fossil fuel. Only currently available alternatives are renewable and nuclear energy. Both have significant technological challenges to solve before they can be quickly deployed on massive scale.

Renewable energy needs expensive monster storage schemes. Nuclear power probably would require to use some sort of breeder reactors to fully utilize available uranium and thorium reserves. It likely would take decades for new type of reactor to go from R&D to testing of prototypes to have design ready for large scale production and it also would have to generate cheaper energy than coal. Maybe Chinese could do it faster because they have much less red tape concerning nuclear energy than western countries.

Worst case scenario that may happen if all available fossil fuels are burned is something like Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum Rising sea levels and more energetic weather would cause some expensive problems but hardly unsolvable. Humans definitely would survive in ice free world and civilization most likely too. As some land floods or turns to desert there would be wast areas in Canada and Russia that probably would get nice climate for living and agriculture as a result of extreme global warming so total available land for human use may not shrink that much.

[jwl]

I know that. That's why I said the next sentence that the principle could be extended to energy in general, if the developments are made to make alternatives cheaper. If russian coal is substantially cheaper than british coal, british coal shuts down. If renewables (incl nuclear) are substantially cheaper than russian coal, russian coal shuts down.

Hahahahaha

No, it means country X coal miners protest and get subsidies as they are big part of electorate/strategical energy source/counter EVIL PUTIN/too big to fail/whatever and the industry continues as if nothing happened.

Really, look up for example coal miners protest in Poland 3 weeks ago. Government capitulated just 2 days after protest started. And yes, the above were all arguments that were used to excuse capitulation.

That's assuming that other energy sources won't gain equally big influence in time. As they grow in power share, their influence will grow too, and solar has the advantage of being based on semiconductor tech, which could link it to the computer industry if it develops in the right way.