Post

Conversation

If you're interested in energy/climate you've probably heard the nugget that "kerosene/crude oil helped save the whales", by reducing demand for whale oil in lanterns. I've even trotted it out myself🤦‍♂️ But there's a problem with it. A BIG problem... 🧵
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

The backstory here begins 200 years ago, before the age of crude oil & electricity, when the best way to light a room was a lantern, and the best oil to burn in that lantern was oil from a sperm whale. It burnt brighter and with less smoke or stink than other oils
Image
The oil itself is found in the head of the sperm whale. It comes from a totally unique organ whose function remains a matter of debate - the spermaceti organ. Whale oil is a long chain molecule unlike nearly anything else in the natural world, giving it unique qualities
Image
So the numbers of whales being hunted and slaughtered rose sharply. The pursuit became legendary (Moby Dick was a sperm whale). People began to fret that the whales, once so plentiful, would soon be wiped out. This was one of the early ecological panics.
Image
Then along came crude oil, refined into kerosene. Kerosene burnt far brighter than whale oil with v little smell (depending on the variety of crude - more on this in Material World). And so, alongside other things like better candles, kerosene helped to replace whale oil
Image
Whale oil consumption for lighting purposes certainly did drop to more or less nothing pretty quickly. And the whaling industry in the US diminished in the late 19th century too. Leaving many in the US to assume that the bars in this chart dropped to zero...
Image
And this gave rise to that nugget you've probably heard before: that "crude oil saved the whales". It was supercharged into the conventional wisdom by a 1996 paper about lighting from Nobel winning economist William Nordhaus. He's mentioned it in various interviews ever since
Image
And since it's a nice counterintuitive story ("Fossil fuels (briefly) SAVED the environment!") and since Nobel laureates hold lots of sway, it became a near accepted fact in the economic world. Indeed, I hadn't doubted it until I read J-B Fressoz's brilliant More & More & More📖
But here's the thing: Nordhaus was WRONG. Because while whale oil wasn't used for lighting any more it WAS used as an ingredient in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and, most of all, as a lubricant. As I said, it's a v v unusual substance. V hard to emulate. Look what happened next.
📈In the 20th century, far from falling, the number of sperm whales being killed ROSE. And not just a little. To multiples of those 19th century highs. Whale oil might not have been going into lanterns but it was going into engines as a lubricant. At unprecedented rates 👇
Image
So no: kerosene didn't save the whales. So what did cause those bars to fall (they're now at near zero, thankfully)...? In short: a whaling ban. Governments stepped in. And in the face of that, in the 1970s businesses frantically began searching for substitutes for spermaceti
They worked out how to create the long-chain esters in whale oil synthetically and they also found a natural replacement: the oil from the jojoba plant. Added to lubricants this was just as good as whale oil. So the whales were saved! But a lot later than you might have thought
Image
So why does this matter today? Well, we are at another inflection point, with a lively debate between those who believe technology, left more or less to its own devices, will deliver solutions to climate change and those who believe nothing will happen without govt intervention
If you believe, as Nordhaus did, that kerosene saved the whales, essentially without any intervention, then you might be more inclined to believe something similar will happen all over again. But it turns out that DIDN'T happen. Which might lead you to the opposite conclusion
20th century whaling not done for energy, lighting, or lubrication by nations with widespread access to refined petroleum. The irony is oil-fueled whaling fleets increased the efficiency of whale harvesting for nations still in the pre-industrial age, or whale meat eaters.
Love Material World, Ed. This post also nicely add additional info on the oil topic and highlights the law of unintended consequences with demand reducing in one area but usage being driven to fuel a new demand. The consistent theme across the various topics - oil, copper,
Show more
I researched this myself and came to same conclusion as Nordhaus. Strongest evidence for the view that kerosene saved the whales is that whalers actually overproduced oil in 1858, with 64% not making a profit because consumers were already switching to cheaper kerosene, a process
Show more
Image
The problem is Ed many are pushing solar and wind as an alternative energy source but they are too unreliable for a modern economy. Nuclear is the only clean, reliable alternative and SMRs are part of that solution. The question is more about what exactly government should do.
Reduction in worldwide whale populations has lead to the rising CO2 in the atmosphere. Whales are great for CO2 capture. They sequester an average of 33 tons of CO2 when they die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Plus best environment for plankton is whale shit. Plankton
Show more
Pre-WW2 85yrs ago USDOD, then DeptOfWar, selectively bred 50%-oil algae to replace diesel with biodiesel Fast forward to a pilot project to develop a repeatable algae-grower for then Gov.JanBrewer AZ USA with EPA head Siemens ASU libraries Phoenix 10M-gal/day plant Mgr&Crew +
Show more
Image
Image
Image
Image
Did Lignum vitae, the wood, follow a similar arc? Very hard, oily & tough it was used as bearing blocks especially for stern tubes in shops & other smaller items V slow growing & so I guess the use > replacement
Great story. The same for coal saving trees. But moving to denser fuels helped create higher heat processes which makes our modern life comfortable (if you’re not one of the billions without adequate energy). You might argue denser fuels and higher heat also made 8 billion people
Show more
One my engineering tutors at college covered this when I was 16, he wanted us all to know about the myth and the reality. And specifically how such myths can cause potential breakthroughs to be delayed and or overlooked. Thanks for the reminder Ed 😊
Could one make a similar argument for wood burning/biomass? In absolute terms wood burning/biomass never reduced although in percentage terms it’s reduced drastically. Like a whaling ban, do we need a wood burning/biomass ban?
An excellent piece of research into the past that offers wisdom for addressing an issue in the present. And a reminder that systems don’t just evolve on their own to be ‘better’, they evolve in response to existential challenges.
Why did it drop to zero again at the end of the chart? Could it have been that cosmetic products etc. where also produced from crude hence oil and gas saving the wales twice?
There are plenty of examples of Nobel Laureates who have gone a bit nuts, so yes do double fact check them. 🙂
Correct retrospectively. If there had not been an alternative to whale oil for lanterns the resources would’ve been depleted sooner or completely. Until we find a suitable alternative change will NOT happen. Resilience is not being built in to promote transition that’s not viable
Nice article, and great book by the way. Though we are not going to be able to regulate our way out of this one. Energy is a primary input into everything. People will not vote to get poorer when they realise what they have been signed up for.
Leaving everything for 100% up to the markets doesn't work. Just like leaving up everything for 100% to governments.
Your data does not support your hypothesis. The whaling reduction due to the introduction of kerosene in the late 1800s was real. It was only later when whale oil was used for other purposes that whaling was banned in 1971.
Just because some few regulations/bans have the intended effect (that ends up being a net positive) that doesn't mean all regulations/bans do (or end up having a net positive). Most climate regulations, based off of crappy models, are a nice example of the latter.
There were fewer countries involved in whale hunting and refining than there are currently in fossil fuel extraction. IF all of those governments can agree on a ban, AND the resulting spike in energy prices can be ameliorated, then sure, science and industry could transition.

Discover more

Sourced from across X
For the first time ever the world‘s largest auto market, China, will sell more electric vehicles than internal combustion engines The future is electric. Compete or perish there is no other option
Image
I don’t think people appreciate how cheap this is. Half the cost of pumped hydro. Can be done anywhere on Earth. Intraday energy storage is a solved problem.
Quote
Gniewomir Flis
@gnievchenko
Nahhh this is wild: 🇨🇳 company received average bid of $66.3/kWh for battery ✨systems✨. Probably got a lot to do with the 16GWh size of the order but this is a small peak into the future of stationary storage. ess-news.com/2024/12/09/pow