Energy Transitions Past and Future  

Cutler Cleveland has a good post up at The Oil Drum (I'll make the probably rash assumption that there is someone who reads my rantings but not TOD), looking at past and future energy transitions. Critical person that I am, I'm a little doubtful about the numbers for geothermal and ocean energy potential and the intermittency section suffers from the baseload fallacy like so many other sources do (note to world - if you want to talk about intermitency of some renewables, you need to discuss energy storage and demand management options as well) but nevertheless its worth reading the whole post.

In the coming decades, world oil production will peak and then begin to decline, followed by natural gas and eventually coal production. There is considerable debate about when these peaks will occur because such information would greatly aid energy companies, policy makers, and the general public. But at another level, the timing of peak fossil fuel production doesn't really matter. A more fundamental issue is the magnitude and nature of the energy transition that will eventually occur. The next energy transition undoubtedly will have far reaching impacts just as fire and fossil fuels did. However, the next energy transition will occur under a very different set of conditions, which are the subject of the rest of this discussion.

The last major transition occurred in the late 19th century when coal replaced wood as the dominant fuel. Figure 2 illustrates this transition for the United States, a period often referred to as the second Industrial Revolution (the first being the widespread replacement of manual labor by machines that began in Britain in the 18th century, and the resultant shift from a largely rural and agrarian population to a town-centered society engaged increasingly in factory manufacture). Wood and animal feed suppled more than 95% of the energy used in the United States in 1800. The population of the nation stood at just 5.3 million people, per capita GDP was about $1,200 (in real US$2000), dominant energy converters were human labor and draft animals (horses), and the population was overwhelmingly rural and concentrated near the eastern seaboard. ...

How much renewable energy is needed if it were to replace fossil fuels in the same pattern as coal replaced wood? The United States first consumed as much coal as wood in about 1885. Total energy use then was about 5.6 quadrillion BTU (1 quadrillion = 1015), equal to about 0.19 TW (Terawatts or 1012 watts). Consider what it would take today to replace even just one-half of U.S. fossil fuel use with renewable energy: we would need to displace coal and petroleum energy flows of 2.9 TW, or 32 times the amount of coal used in 1885. Current global fossil fuel use is about 13 TW, so we need more than 6 TW of renewable energies to replace 50% of all fossil fuels. This is a staggering shift.

Is renewable energy up to this challenge? There are physical, economic, technical, environmental, and social components to this question. Figure 3 depicts one slice of the picture: pure physical availability as measured by the global annual flow of various energies. The only renewable energy that exceeds annual global fossil fuel use is direct solar radiation, which is several orders of magnitudes larger than fossil fuel use. To date however, the delivery of electricity (photovoltaics) or heat (solar thermal) directly from solar energy represents a tiny fraction of our energy portfolio due to economic and technical constraints. Most other renewable energy flows could not meet current energy needs even if they were fully utilized. More importantly, there are important qualitative aspects to solar, wind, and biomass energy that pose unique challenges to their widespread utilization. ...

The debate about "peak oil" aside, there are relatively abundant remaining supplies of fossil fuels. Their quality is declining, but not yet to the extent that increasing scarcity will help trigger a major energy transition like wood scarcity did in the 19th century. The costs of wind, solar and biomass have declined due to steady technical advances, but in key areas of energy quality—density, net energy, intermittancy, flexibility, and so on—they remain inferior to conventional fuels. Thus, alternative energy sources are not likely to supplant fossil fuels in the short term without substantial and concerted policy intervention. The need to restrain carbon emissions may provide the political and social pressure to accelerate the transition to wind, biomass and solar, as this is one area where they clearly trump fossil fuels. Electricity from wind and solar sources may face competition from nuclear power, the sole established low-carbon power source with significant potential for expansion. If concerns about climate change drive a transition to renewable sources, it will be the first time in human history that energetic imperatives, especially the the economic advantages of higher-quality fuels, were not the principal impetus.

Energy Bulletin has an article from Army News on The Australian army and peak oil. I used to have a few regular readers at Defence though I haven't noticed them showing up much lately (then again my posting has been erratic in recent months and peak oil news gets less exposure here than it did in previous years). Its interesting to see the issue is at least being considered as its going to be more difficult for them to handle less oil availability than the civilian economy (though, as they note, they do have first dibs on fuel if they choose to exercise that power of course) - aircraft don't have any other options at present (and are very expensive to replace) and things like tanks aren't going to become electric vehicles any time soon.

Oil is a peak concern

ABOUT two years ago I read a book entitled Beyond Oil: The view from Hubberts Peak.

It talks about oil depletion, or peak oil, which I have been following quite closely since then. Peak oil is the term used to describe the global peaking and then decline of oil production.

With global demand still increasing about 2 per cent a year, and the depletion rate expected to be about 2.5-3 per cent a year after the peak, this will see the price of fuel increase significantly and will likely result in an economic recession/depression that could last for decades. While it is uncertain when the peak will occur, based on a significant amount of research that I have completed, I believe it will occur between now and the end of the decade.

The Army is obviously reliant upon oil to fuel its growing fleet of trucks, tanks, helicopters, generators etc. I don’t have any figures to support this, but I imagine that our consumption of fuel is increasing as we bring on new capabilities.

While the Liquid Fuels Emergency Act will ensure the Army and ADF is a top priority for fuel, public opinion will no doubt demand that this fuel be used sparingly, in the event of a liquid fuels crisis. Is the Army aware of peak oil and has it started planning for it?

Maj Cameron Leckie
136 Sig Sqn
Gallipoli Barracks


Lt-Col Nick Floyd, A/DSIE-A, Future Land Warfare AHQ, responds:

WE recognise that the peaking and eventual decline of global oil production will have severe consequences for Army as well as the wider community.

We are engaging across Defence in this regard, and are factoring such aspects as fuel consumption in our considerations.

While peak oil individually constitutes a significant threat, Army recognises that a similar level of risk management will be required for other energy issues, such as a disruption to our electricity supply or natural gas reserves. As such we are addressing all of these issues under the broader theme of energy security. Within this context, it is important to recognise the existence of Australia’s energy dependency and vulnerability.

Dependency describes the reliance of a given socio-economic sector on a particular energy source(s) to sustain that sector.

The more energy sources a sector has, the less dependent it is on a particular source; whereas dependency will diminish as efficiencies or other reductions in consumption occur. In contrast, vulnerability of an economic sector’s energy source(s) relates to volatility, interdiction or slowing of supply – through market forces, diplomatic/military action by suppliers or third agencies, and sabotage as well as natural events.

Securing Australia’s energy encompasses the problem area of securing not only sources, but also lines of supply, from the point of origin to the final consumer. We must also consider energy not only as a consumable within sectors of the national economy (including Defence and Defence-related industry), but also energy as a commodity for export, as part of the national economy.

Both aspects of energy security are central in Australia’s national interests, and ultimately a vital consideration in national and military strategy.

Staff from Future Land Warfare (FLW) Branch of AHQ are actively engaged in energy security working groups, nationally and internationally, collaborating with a range of public and private sector stakeholders.

Ongoing collaboration with organisations such as the Kokoda Foundation and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has allowed us to expand our knowledge of energy security, and also to provide information and facilitate understanding regarding the range of energy security concerns facing the Army, Defence and the nation.

Most recently, FLW-A staff attended a presentation on peak oil by the co-author of the US Department of Energy-commissioned “Hirsch Report”.

FLW-A staff are collaborating with Strategic Policy Division to identify the implications of energy security issues for Defence.

This work will ensure Army is prepared to contribute to a whole of Government effort through advice, liaison, and preventive and, where required, decisive action.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Common Dreams has an article noting that Iraqis unsurprisingly don't want all that "undiscovered" oil that makes up the greatest prize of all being handed over to American oil companies via the proposed new oil law - "Poll Shows Iraqis Want National Oil Companies to Develop Iraqi Oil". Somehow I don't think Dick and George care so much about freedom and democracy when it comes to this topic.

Here’s one thing we can credit the Bush Administration for: its invasion of Iraq has made more apparent what our government is doing when it “promotes democracy in the Middle East.” Before, there was much to illustrate the contradiction between rhetoric and reality. But in the past, U.S. officials could “poor-mouth” their influence: “we’re doing what we can.”

Now that the U.S. is an occupying power in Iraq, the role of the U.S. is in sharper focus. The power of the U.S. in Iraq is not absolute. U.S. officials have to negotiate with Iraqi power centers. But the U.S. has powerful influence. And the direction in which this influence is being exercised is more visible than usual.

Case in point: U.S. efforts to pressure the Iraqi parliament to pass a hydrocarbon law, reorganizing the oil industry. If a goal of the Bush Administration is truly to promote democracy, then what Iraqis actually think of this law is a critical question.

We now have some evidence about this, and the evidence suggests that the majority of Iraqis do not support the law that the Bush Administration is trying to impose.

Oil Change International commissioned a poll. More than six-in-ten (63%) of all respondents said they preferred that Iraqi companies rather than foreign firms take the lead in developing Iraq’s oil (32% “strongly,” 31% “moderately”). The poll also found that three-quarters of Iraqis say their government has provided either “totally inadequate” or “somewhat inadequate” information on the draft oil law, as Ben Lando noted in a UPI analysis.

Reasonable people can disagree in their predictions about what exactly the consequences of the passage of the oil law as currently drafted would be. They can also disagree in their assessment of whether the draft law is in the interest of the majority of Iraqis. But if Iraq is a democracy, the final judgment belongs to the Iraqi people.

U.S. media reporting has misleadingly conflated the question of the proposed reorganization of the industry with the question of how oil revenues are distributed among Iraqis - Counterspin critiques the New York Times coverage here - and there has been little debate. A few Members of Congress - Reps. Kucinich, Sestak, and Delahunt, for example - have spoken up.

One suspects that part of the reason is that if supporters of continuing the indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq were forced to concede that Iraqis don’t support what the U.S. is doing - not to mention that nearly a million Iraqis have died - the whole argument about “cut and run” would be exposed as a cruel farce. If one is engaged in an immoral enterprise, there’s nothing brave about “staying the course.”

Links:

* The Energy Blog - Ships Becoming Largest Source of Emissions
* The Energy Blog - Who said Nuclear Plants Aren't Good for Us?. Unlike Jim I'm not much of a nuclear power fan, but its nice to see it does have some positive side effects.
* Clean Break - Demand-response aggregators of the world unite!!!
* Technology Review - Technology companies tout greener credentials, but significant improvements are well off
* Technology Review - Smaller, Cheaper Biofuel Reactors
* WSJ Energy Roundup - Is Clean Tech Immune From Market Woes?
* AllAfrica.com - Nigeria: When Oil Finishes. "Nigeria has to discover the political will to repair the Niger Delta now. Once oil runs out, the region will be a wasteland, of the worst type seen anywhere, since oil and gas exploration in these parts have minimal considerations for the people, and the environment."
* AllAfrica.com - Sudan: Oil Companies Oppressing South Sudanese
* The Guardian - Increased North Sea oil production shrinks UK trade deficit
* Technology Review - A Clearer Picture of Global Warming
* The Age - Ride to work day pushes benefits of pedal power
* New York Times - The Fear of Fear Itself
* The New Zealand Herald - Facebook - the CIA conspiracy. Its always a pleasure to see some tinfoil in a mainstream paper. Web 2.0 lets you assemble your own dossier apparently. If you long ago gave up the idea of privacy like I did, the initial reaction might be "what's new", but I'm sure some people will have fun hacking all sorts of imaginary personas together and further contributing to the bad data glut.
* Album Of The Day - Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?