A Protocol for Mitigating Oil and Gas Depletion

In the face of increasing energy costs and international conflict, we have been bombarded with a flurry of energy alternatives. From the hydrogen miracle to cellulosic ethanol, from perpetual motion to cold fusion and zero-point energy, many proposals side-step, ignore or violate the laws of physics.

A protocol is proposed to put these popular (or obscure) options to the test, to provide clarity and reason in light of the substantial societal risk of betting on the wrong horse. If we choose a suite of technologies which precipitate a string of unintended consequences (nuclear war, global warming, destruction of biodiversity, or depletion of even more vital materials), millions will suffer. If these technologies are insufficient and we discover this only after exhausting our "seed corn" of fossil fuels, civilization may collapse.

Under the protocol, a scoreboard is established by a respected neutral party. A preliminary set of parameters and metrics is defined, and a literature search is conducted to suggest how all pertinent energy technology measure up to each other. Once a scorecard is in place for any given alternative, interested parties may endorse or challenge the scores in a rigorous fashion.

Description and Examples

Below is a list of factors which define the viability of energy alternatives in the face of oil and gas depletion. Suggestions are welcomed for culling, augmenting, and/or refining this list. The examples are mostly generalizations which must be made rigorous before any specific claims of scientific veracity are made.

Item Description Examples

Addiction Is it to meet necessity or to indulge gluttony?

We may need fuel for cars but certainly not for SUVs.

Equity Who wins? Who loses?

If it's Fuel vs. Food, does it make any sense? See what Fidel Castro says about this.

Reality Check Is it fact or fiction?

Hydrogen is down the road and around the bend.

Efficiency How does its efficiency compare with other options?

Photosynthesis can be ~1% efficient; energy conversion to fuel or electricity might be ~30% efficient. 1% * 30% = 0.33%. Photovoltaics and Solar Thermal are 5% to 40% efficient -- up to 100 times better.

Net Energy How much energy does it take to produce the energy? also called EROI, EROEI, Yield per Effort...

Corn ethanol delivers net negative energy. Cellulosic ethanol has net energy of 1.5:1, meaning it would take 3 hectares of wood or switchgrass to produce the energy embodied in 1 hectare of biomass.

Tar sands yield perhaps 2:1 -- 1 net barrel requires another barrel equivalent (currently mostly from natural gas) to

Economics Before and after subsidies, how does it compare with the alternatives?

Nuclear is not economic if future costs are included.

Scalability Can it ramp up soon enough to matter? What percentage of need can it meet?

To achieve 85 million barrels per day equivalent, cellulosic ethanol would require the equivalent of 15 million square km, 10% of all land area.

Environment Does it preserve or destroy important habitat? Does it contribute to greenhouse gases?

China cannot sustain 46 square km for chopsticks, so how could cars be fueled from woodlots?

Tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids consume prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons to yield usable fuels, accelerating global warming.

Substitution Will it directly replace an existing technology or does it imply a new paradigm?

The existing global auto fleet is unsustainable and must be transformed, with a new source of energy (electricity) and a new configuration (e.g., the automobile replaced by Personal Rapid Transit, PRT).

Projects for Developing, Debating and Testing of Energy Alternatives Claims

New Energy Congress, a part of PESWiki.

Mission Statement: The New Energy Congress is an association for the purpose of reviewing the most promising claims to up-and-coming clean, renewable, affordable, reliable energy technologies, in order to come up with a weighted list of recommendations of the best technologies...
[In turn,] PESWiki is a community-built 'free energy' website sponsored by PES Network, Inc. Focusing on alternative, clean, practical, renewable energy solutions." New Energy Congress -- Technology Review Criteria
"The following are criteria used by New Energy Congress in reviewing and assessing claims to clean energy technologies.
"These criteria are prioritized and weighed. All qualifying technologies will be considered for review.
"This is an early draft, and is sure to be upgraded over time. The first draft, archived elsewhere, was unanimously approved with one abstention by NEC on Feb. 4, 2006. This page is a working draft for continual modification and improvement. Feel free to modify it as requisite."

ScoreBoard by energy source

Unrelated to the above initiatives, below is a very preliminary scoring for a number of general technologies by the Editor. Some of the metrics may be reasonable, some are very approximate, some are far too vague or just plain wrong. The objective for the moment is to lay out a framework and some examples to inspire a collaborative effort by a group which, as implied above, has credibility and sufficient organizational skills to garner human, financial and technical resources sufficient to the task. Much higher resolution is also necessary. For example, "Solar" below would logically be divided into perhaps a dozen sub-categories, and beyond that, each of many manufacturers might submit individual scorecards.

Item coal oil natural gas nuclear tar sands geothermal biomass hydro solar wind hydrogen

Addiction yes & dangerous due to GHG yes & dangerous due to depletion yes & dangerous due to depletion yes & dangerous due to depletion (see oil) ? biosphere already overtaxed ? ? ? ?

Reality Check yes yes yes no limited yes limited yes yes yes no

Efficiency 30%? 5-30% I.C.E. low? 50%+ combined cycle 15%? 20% <1% 50%? 5%-40% 50% theoretical 25%-50%

Net Energy need better data 3-50 & declining 10-30? some declining, some good 4-10 & declining. Need better data 2 10? <1 - 2 for liquids; up to 50 for firewood 10 10-50 30-80 <<1

Economics

Scalability yes but at what price for the future? In depletion phase Yes but at what price for the future? No. 10,000 needed to meet demand. Insufficient uranium. Longlasting but limited to small percentage of need Already exploited, expansion limited Already exploited, expansion limited Already exploited, expansion limited Yes but requires political will to invest for long term Yes but requires political will to invest for long term Some limited applications

Environment GHG, acid rain, land degradation GHG, spills best of fossil fuels; some toxic gases disasters in the making GHG, land degradation toxic GHG neutral but biodiversity disaster depends -- river disruption, silting up ok some bird kills does not exist except from sources; impact depends on source

Substitution

(e.g., relative to transportation)
Coal-to-liquid GHG implications Depletion compression or gas to liquid inefficient Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet No changes required Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet Substitution claimed but at what cost? Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet, storage Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet, storage Complete infrastructure change required

Item	Description	Examples
Addiction	Is it to meet necessity or to indulge gluttony?	We may need fuel for cars but certainly not for SUVs.
Equity	Who wins? Who loses?	If it's Fuel vs. Food, does it make any sense? See what Fidel Castro says about this.
Reality Check	Is it fact or fiction?	Hydrogen is down the road and around the bend.
Efficiency	How does its efficiency compare with other options?	Photosynthesis can be ~1% efficient; energy conversion to fuel or electricity might be ~30% efficient. 1% * 30% = 0.33%. Photovoltaics and Solar Thermal are 5% to 40% efficient -- up to 100 times better.
Net Energy	How much energy does it take to produce the energy? also called EROI, EROEI, Yield per Effort...	Corn ethanol delivers net negative energy. Cellulosic ethanol has net energy of 1.5:1, meaning it would take 3 hectares of wood or switchgrass to produce the energy embodied in 1 hectare of biomass. Tar sands yield perhaps 2:1 -- 1 net barrel requires another barrel equivalent (currently mostly from natural gas) to
Economics	Before and after subsidies, how does it compare with the alternatives?	Nuclear is not economic if future costs are included.
Scalability	Can it ramp up soon enough to matter? What percentage of need can it meet?	To achieve 85 million barrels per day equivalent, cellulosic ethanol would require the equivalent of 15 million square km, 10% of all land area.
Environment	Does it preserve or destroy important habitat? Does it contribute to greenhouse gases?	China cannot sustain 46 square km for chopsticks, so how could cars be fueled from woodlots? Tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids consume prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons to yield usable fuels, accelerating global warming.
Substitution	Will it directly replace an existing technology or does it imply a new paradigm?	The existing global auto fleet is unsustainable and must be transformed, with a new source of energy (electricity) and a new configuration (e.g., the automobile replaced by Personal Rapid Transit, PRT).

Item	coal	oil	natural gas	nuclear	tar sands	geothermal	biomass	hydro	solar	wind	hydrogen
Addiction	yes & dangerous due to GHG	yes & dangerous due to depletion	yes & dangerous due to depletion	yes & dangerous due to depletion	(see oil)	?	biosphere already overtaxed	?	?	?	?
Reality Check	yes	yes	yes	no	limited	yes	limited	yes	yes	yes	no
Efficiency	30%?	5-30% I.C.E.	low?	50%+ combined cycle	15%?	20%	<1%	50%?	5%-40%	50% theoretical	25%-50%
Net Energy	need better data	3-50 & declining	10-30? some declining, some good	4-10 & declining. Need better data	2	10?	<1 - 2 for liquids; up to 50 for firewood	10	10-50	30-80	<<1
Economics
Scalability	yes but at what price for the future?	In depletion phase	Yes but at what price for the future?	No. 10,000 needed to meet demand. Insufficient uranium.	Longlasting but limited to small percentage of need	Already exploited, expansion limited	Already exploited, expansion limited	Already exploited, expansion limited	Yes but requires political will to invest for long term	Yes but requires political will to invest for long term	Some limited applications
Environment	GHG, acid rain, land degradation	GHG, spills	best of fossil fuels; some toxic gases	disasters in the making	GHG, land degradation	toxic	GHG neutral but biodiversity disaster	depends -- river disruption, silting up	ok	some bird kills	does not exist except from sources; impact depends on source
Substitution (e.g., relative to transportation)	Coal-to-liquid GHG implications	Depletion	compression or gas to liquid inefficient	Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet	No changes required	Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet	Substitution claimed but at what cost?	Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet	Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet, storage	Electric grid exists, requires electric fleet, storage	Complete infrastructure change required