Costly Alternatives To Oil

As oil prices increase and the discussion of peak oil starts making headline news, the "alternatives" compete for public attention. Consistently, those "alternatives: offer false hope, if not outright deception, to the people. This article discusses some of the issues with the leading proposals: biodiesel and ethanol, tar sands, and nuclear energy.

Ethanol is perhaps seen as the most available and easiest petroleum replacement. Ethanol is currently an additive in some U.S. gas formulations. Because of the existing presence of ethanol, biodiesel is also seen as an acceptable replacement. There are two major problems with holding out the hope of ethanol and biodiesel as significant replacements for petroleum. The first is the amount of crop land that would be needed to be moved from food production to fuel production, The second is that it takes more energy to produce these alternative fuels than they actually provide.

While corn farmers may see an expanded market for their crops, experts see the possibility of food shortages. As Lester Brown, agriculture expert, frames the issues: "Farms cannot feed all the world's people and its motor vehicles as well, and the result is that more people will go hungry." Another problem is that the use of corn as a fuel replacement is driving corn prices up. This means that all products that contain corn (and most do - particularly as a sweetener) will increase in cost as well. Further, farming the way it is currently structured is incredibly oil dependent. While most people are well aware that oil is in the farming process from preparing fields to planting, harvest, and transporting crops. Many are unaware that oil is also in fertilizer and in pesticides and herbicides. In fact, we have been using oil to replace the nutrients stripped from the land by intensive modern agriculture.

Tar sands, or oil sands, are also seeing increasing interest and activity. China is planning on adding oil sands and shale to its oil sources. Japan is considering importing oil sands from Canada to meet part of their oil needs. Canada is making a big pitch on oil sands, and stands to both win big and lose big by exploiting this resource.

The cost of this bounty is high, however. Oil sand mining is incredibly destructive of the land (see Pembina Institute Oil Sands Watch). The energy it takes to extract the oil (tar actually) from that sand, is also high. It takes about 2 barrels of oil to extract 3 barrels of oil from tar sands. That is for processing, and does not include the energy required to mine and transport the sand. Because of the high levels of energy required to extract oil from tar sands, there is a move to use nuclear power for processing.

Nuclear power is also posited a method to reduce energy consumption - thereby leaving oil for transportation and other needs. Nuclear power poses the hazards we are all familiar with - namely disposal/storage of nuclear waste,
and the likelihood of nuclear accident. There are two other issues less frequently discussed. The first is obvious when one thinks about it. That is that nuclear material is an exhaustible resource. Eventually, it - like oil - will be exhausted. Dramatically increasing the mining of radioactive material will accelerate this exhaustion. A less obvious issue is concerns about the use of that same nuclear material (and radioactive waste) in the construction of nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. If nuclear power generation becomes a global phenomenon, then so does the risk of those materials falling into the hands of those who would use them as weapons. It also dramatically increases the number of potential nuclear targets. However, there is yet another issue. That is that nuclear power is not likely to help either significantly as an oil replacement, nor in reducing global warming gases (Nuclear power 'cannot tackle climate change').

The immediate strategy which offers the most hope - both in terms of oil supply, and global warming - is conservation. Increasing efficiency, localization, and conservation are all short term strategies that can dramatically reduce consumption. They also offer economic growth possibilities. Meanwhile, more benign energy generation can be brought up to speed. Solar, wind, and wave energy are all possibilities. They also offer the possibility of placing energy back in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of transnational corporations. There is no easy and painless way through the crisis ahead of us. It demands change on a variety of levels. It is (and will) force us to reevaluate our conceptualizations of the planet and our relationship to it - and of people of the world and our relationships to each other.

Other Articles of Interest
Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment

10 Books on Solutions for Energy Descent You Must Read in 2006

Energy Economics and Fossil Fuels

Oil industry faces a stark choice

Posted by rowan at January 19, 2006 6:12 AM | [eMail this article!] |