Simple Maths  

Dave Roberts at Grist is wondering what all the fuss about the exact date of peak oil really achieves (I stopped wondering about this a while ago and decided it was more interesting to look at what the best alternatives are for the future). Dave also wisely notes that politics matters, which is why I devote some space in almost every post to metaphorically beating various viridian hate objects that are hampering progress.

As I see it, virtually everyone but the abiotic fruitloops agrees that oil is a finite resource that's going to hit peak production at some point. Even the CERA report, from what I can tell (I haven't ponied up the $1000 to read it), claims production will peak around 2040, stay on an "undulating plateau" for a while, and then decline slowly. This is not a best case scenario, but it's pretty rosy -- it gives us breathing room. Anyone who's read around the internets a little will be familiar with more dire predictions.

I, along with about 99.99% of the population, am not interested in the factual question as such. In general, minerals do not inflame my passions.

What I'm interested in is the political question: how does this affect human welfare? What should we do about it?

Now, it is the nature of engineers, data nerds, lefty wonks, and other too-smart-for-their-own-good types to have a somewhat naive view of politics. They tend to think that the main determinant of political action is the established empirical facts. Establish the facts; policy ensues. That's why winning the empirical argument is so overwhelmingly important for them.

Of course, it's not so. The range of possibilities in the political world -- the real world, not the world of policy wonkery -- is, at least most of the time, much narrower than the range of possible oil production scenarios. And political action cannot be controlled with anything like the nuance one finds in different peak oil perspectives. It can just barely be controlled at all. It moves to its own mysterious rhythms, as responsive to imagery, emotion, and -- crucially -- chance circumstance as to "the facts."

Weaning our society off oil is an enormous task. It's going to take a great deal of time and political effort to make it happen. Progress will be halting and non-linear. There will be many false starts, diversions, and unexpected difficulties. If you think oil production's going to peak -- tomorrow, in a decade, mid-century, whenever -- you need to help get that ball rolling, ASAP.

Perhaps in a perfect Platonic world of policy, a "peak oil is today" strategy would look different from a "peak oil in 2040" strategy. But back down here on earth, we're stuck with the blunt instrument of representative democracy. Our choice is far closer to binary than most oil geeks are willing to acknowledge. The choice before us is: mobilize and start pushing, or don't. Keep doing nothing, or start doing something.

We need to get started. It's that simple.

Tom Whipple's latest peak oil column in the Falls Church News Press looks at a number of soon to be released peak oil studies (I suspect the NPC one might look a little like the CERA report for some reason).

Across the world governments are scrambling faster and faster preparing for the coming energy crisis. Delegations from China are everywhere making deals for a share of the soon-to-dwindle oil flow. Almost weekly there is a new announcement from Beijing regarding plans for more wind, solar and biofuels. Japan and Korea are looking for alternative sources of energy supply. Sweden is saying, flat out, that peak oil is coming and is making plans for a fossil fuel-less future.

The European Union is all over the map with plans for alternative fuels, new regulations on energy consumption, and efforts to guarantee an energy supply for the continent.

Meanwhile, energy exporters are reveling in their newfound wealth and influence while in the poorer corners of the world people are quietly shutting off the lights. For many, the oil age ended when oil reached $60 a barrel.

Here in America, however, there is as yet little sense of urgency about the future of our energy supply. Last summer when gasoline was $3+ a gallon and warnings of devastating hurricanes were in the air, Congress was indeed thrashing about in an attempt to reassure the voters they would do something prior to the fall elections. But the storm subsided, the hurricanes went away, oil stockpiles climbed, gasoline settled back to $2, and all was well. With a sigh of relief, the Dow-Jones surged to a new all-time high.

Should any of you be feeling complacent, however, let me reassure you that the world is still burning 85 million barrels a day (b/d), there really have not been any important new discoveries, no world-saving technological breakthroughs have come to light, and you are only continuing to drive because so many of the world's peoples can't afford $60 oil.

Beneath the surface in America, however, there is movement. The Democrats now control the Congress and are already floating proposals that could help with the coming crisis. These include rolling back tax breaks for the major oil companies, probing off-shore lease deals, providing more money for renewable fuels, pushing for diesel and electric cars, and settling the spent nuclear fuel issue.

Of more long-term significance, however, two major studies of the prospects for world energy supplies are currently underway in Washington. The first of these is being done by the Government Accountability Office and is to be released on February 28. This study will actually deal with the prospects for "peak oil" -- when it will come and what can be done to mitigate the consequences. The GAO was asked by the House of Representatives Science Committee to undertake this study that has been underway for over a year.

The second and what on the surface sounds the most in-depth study of world energy resources ever undertaken is being done under the auspices of the National Petroleum Council (NPC). This council, a federally chartered and privately funded advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, was established by President Truman in 1946. Its purpose is to represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries with respect to any matter relating to oil and natural gas. Note the words "the views of the oil and natural gas industries" as they just may come back to haunt us after the two studies are released.

On October 5, 2005, Energy Secretary Bodman sent a letter to the NPC asking what the future holds for oil and gas supplies, can supplies continue to be found at affordable prices, and just what does the oil and gas industry recommend to ensure our prosperity? The issue was promptly accepted for study and the next seven months were spent planning and getting organized. Two weeks ago the NPC released an updated status report outlining the details of just who is studying what.

The scope and work plan for the study are truly impressive. Task groups are to work on supply, demand, technology, and geopolitics. The task groups are to be overseen by a coordinating sub-committee that in turn reports to a Global Committee and finally to the NPC leadership itself. These task groups are supported by 25 "cross-cutting" subgroups, which are to examine smaller topics such as biomass, nuclear power, and "non-proprietary data." At last word some 200 people were involved in the NPC effort. The study also is reaching out to nearly everyone who can spell "oil" -- academia, laboratories, professional societies, consultants, governments, industry and you-name-it.

From reading the work plan for the study, one can't help but be impressed by how thorough and comprehensive the study will be. Of particular interest is the opportunity to use and assess proprietary information about the world's oil reserves and prospects for production held by participating oil companies.

What can we expect from these studies? The GAO effort will almost certainly be the straightforward professional exercise we have come to expect from this organization. The study will probably acknowledge that world oil production will peak someday and the researchers, who work for the Congress, will do their best to give a balanced answer to questions of when production will peak and what might we do about it.

As for the NPC study, it would be unfair to prejudge something that has not yet been written. Considering its proposed scope and the number of people involved in the drafting, it may provide much valuable new data and many insights into the prospects for the earth's energy resources. It could even turn out to support the idea that severe energy shortages lie just ahead and give a balanced presentation of the prospects for energy during the next 25 years.

On the other hand it is hard to avoid noting that several of the leaders of the NPC study have long records of vehemently opposing the idea that world oil production will peak within the next 10 years. Moat notable of these are the study's chairman, Lee Raymond, formerly of ExxonMobil, and Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Research Associates.

If one were cynical, you could believe that the NPC study, which by definition is to provide the oil and gas industry's position, was commissioned to provide a counterweight to the independent GAO study should it conclude that peak oil is for real and imminent. The timing of the two studies' release will of course give the NPC plenty of time to incorporate or attempt to refute whatever evidence or logic the GAO cites in reaching its conclusions.

No matter what the studies conclude, the possibility that our oil supplies will decline in the near future is one of the most, if not the most important issue facing the world in the coming century. These studies are bound to play a major role in the coming debate.

The Energy Blog has a post on some smart South Africans who have taken a punt on the GreenFuels biodiesel from algae process and are building a big processing plant to produce the stuff. I guess the sanctions years and their experiences producing their own oil via coal to liquids plants have made them a bit more adventurous (and proactive) when it comes to alternatives to oil.

Green Star Products, Inc. announced that it has signed an agreement with De Beers Fuel Limited of South Africa to build 90 biodiesel reactors.

Each of the biodiesel reactors will be capable of producing 10 million gallons of biodiesel each year for a total production capacity of 900,000,000 gallons per year when operating at full capacity, which is 4 times greater than the entire U.S. output in 2006.

The first plant is currently using sunflower seed oil as feedstock, however, it is planned to switch to using algae produced with the Greenfuel Technologies Corporation system and has purchased and removed their bioreactor from Cambridge, Massachusetts, and transported it to South Africa.

Just a short post tonight - the link bucket has been refilled for those who want more.