Image: Oliver Munday
More In This Article
Canada's tar sand projects sprawl across 600 square kilometers of northeastern Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called the industrial effort to extract oil from the deposits “an enterprise of epic proportions, akin to the building of the pyramids or China's Great Wall. Only bigger.”
As traditional oil and natural gas reserves become increasingly difficult to find, and as demand rises, energy companies are turning to unconventional resources that, like the tar sands, are harder and more costly to access. Production of tar sands–based oil, for instance, has tripled over the past decade, reaching 1.6 million barrels a day in 2011.
This article was originally published with the title The True Cost of Fossil Fuels.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentI computed the distance that a 2013 Nissan Leaf could travel on a Gjoule and got about 1/4 the value shown on your chart. I think it might be prudent to take the values in the article with a grain of salt. Also, one might observe that if those numbers are right, an awful lot of investors are wrong. This may, indeed, be so, but caution is advised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ thmjones
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are probably correct that the information should be taken with caution as is always the case, but I think you might be misinterpreting what the author is saying. The graphic showing 6500 miles driven by an electric car is for 1 GJ of energy put into electricity production not into the car. I haven't done the calculations, but I suspect that if you did the same calculation that you did for electricity for the other fuels in the graphic you'd find that they all are also greater distances than your approach would anticipate. This is really the point of the article - that it takes energy to get energy into usable form and that some forms represent a better return for a given end goal such as miles driven.
The main graphic of the article gives a strong negative impression of Canadian "tar sands" oil. Yet in the later graphs, we see that heavy California oil is worse, and our precious and heavily taxpayer-subsidized corn-based ethanol is way-way worse. Other articles in S.A. also leave a negative impression about the Canadian oil. S.A. has even repeated the far-out environmentalist claim in a headline "More Oil from Canada’s Tar Sands Could Mean Game Over for Climate Change." Yet we never hear that said about ethanol. The soybean-based biodiesel is only marginally better in terms of its energy in/out ratio, and simple energy ignores the waste of farmland, water, and the limited resource of phosphorus for fertilizer. I'd like to see S.A. writers get together to provide a consistent, cohesive, and truly scientific story on these issues, rather than having each writer cover a subject in a vacuum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMason Inman's The True Cost of Fossil Fuels provides a valuable servioe by explaining energy return on investment (EROI)for the liquid fuels and electricity sectors of the energy economy. Omitted; however, was the heat sector and example EROI values for woody and non-woody (crop) biomass used in direct combustion applications located relatively close to the harvesting sites of these fuels. This information would show EROI values that compete very well in the overall mix of non-fossil energy sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne word: Biocrude
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anybody looked at the situation with biocrude included?
When do we get a comparison article titled "The True Cost Of Alternative energy?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent point. No form of energy production is without negative consequences. It is only very recently that a few people have decided that the rest of the population should stop emitting CO2. These same people do not seem to see population control (the true root cause) as something to be addressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love Scientific American, but there is definitely a leftward tilt in the reporting. I don't trust your objectivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle raises a good point. 'When do we get a comparison article titled "The True Cost Of Alternative energy?"'
+1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting that middle of the road reporting of reality is 'leftist'. Just because you might not like reality doesn't mean it is a socialist plot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes we do need to determine the true costs of all energy production, but in reality it is very difficult and complex to do so. True costs are never really known until they have been in use for a long time and the flow on effected become apparent. The 'profit now' and worry about the consequences later attitude has been the main driving ideology of capitalist production.
Where have you been, hiding under a rock? Carlyle and Sisko are resident trolls. Beware.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince air pollution is killing more people than malaria and AIDS right now, let's focus on lowering these numbers for now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of us already do live without oil as much as possible making our own energy at parity costs in many places.
Also many like me are driving EV's mostly charged by PV or wind or on going to be wasted anyway power so little added CO2, etc costs for most of them.
EV's are around 70% eff from PV, wind vs around 7% eff from a gas tank to the road not including the costs to make that gasoline and get it there. My lightweight EV's get 250-1000mpg equivalent.
The best solution is homes, buildings, that first need little power/energy and then make their own for the rest plus transport needs and far more than they use and get a check for it is the low cost future.
Those that stay with utilities prices will rise Vs after a 3-5 yr payback period where the price doesn't rise, you get nearly free power for 20-50 yrs.
It's going to be very hard to beat RE even now but in the near future it'll be a no brainer and utilities will shrink, not grow because they won't be able to compete on a level playing field and true free market.
By your actions in refusing to promote the only technology available that would actually make a difference, in fact arguing repeatedly against nuclear power, you & your cohorts are supporting the present wasteful burning of fossil fuels by default.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but nuclear power failed spectacularly in the 70's and 80's and you want to try this failed strategy again? And why am I seeing basically this same post from several different people on the boards today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that James Hansen just produced a peer reviewed paper published in reputable showing nuke energy has saved millions of lives - some failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is opposed to the junk science ghouls on the site quote to support the continuing fossil air pollution murder of millions per year with their mindless unworkable not so renewable solutions.
There is no question, despite its potential for improvement when all parameters are in, nuclear energy is by far the most successful form of energy mankind has available to it.
One always have to question who pays the zero information Sault to monitor this site 24/7, ready to pounce at a moments notice dumping his worthless commentary.
The ad hominem attack is a sure sign that one doesn't really have a valid argument, so they go for personal attacks instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought you were proud of your status as ghoul shilling for Big Oil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for proving my point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this