Toyota On Peak Oil  

Posted by Big Gav in , ,

Energy Tech Stocks has a look at a recent corporate sustainability report from Toyota and concludes they sound like a bunch of crazy peak oil doomers - Sounding Like ‘Peak Oil’ Advocate, Toyota Warns World Faces ‘Supply Shortages and Resource Exhaustion’ (actually they point out we ned to shift to electric vehicles, which Toyota have been leading the charge on, if you'll forgive the pun).

Toyota Motor Corp. said in a new report that by 2020 there may be 1.5 billion vehicles on global highways, 600 million more than there are today, a situation the automaker warned “increases both the possibility of supply shortages and resource exhaustion.”

The report, Toyota’s Sustainability Report for 2008, echoes a July warning from Toyota’s coordinator for alternately fueled vehicles, Bill Reinert, that the world could hit what he reportedly called a “liquid peak” within a decade. Reinert’s warning, made in Portland, Ore., at a conference on sustainable cities that Toyota sponsored, was first reported on the website Green Car Congress, which noted that Toyota thinks a liquid peak could occur even if all available liquid fuels are produced at maximum capacity without concern for the impact on the environment.

The phrase “liquid peak” would appear to be a more dire warning of the potential for motor fuel shortages than the warnings encompassed in the term “peak oil.” While peak oil refers specifically to oil production reaching a physical limit insufficient to satisfy demand, the term liquid peak suggests that not just oil but also biofuel and nonconventional fossil fuel production could reach maximum output and there would still not be enough liquid transportation fuel for some 1.5 billion cars and trucks.

Toyota makes it clear in its report that reducing the number of cars and trucks on the road isn’t an option in its opinion. At the same time, Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe says in the report’s introduction that, “We at Toyota are keenly aware that without focusing on energy and global warming countermeasures there can be no future for motor vehicles.”

Having backed itself into a corner, Toyota in its report hails the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) as the answer to how the world can increase the number of vehicles on the road without seriously increasing the environmental damage those additional vehicles would cause if they ran on gasoline and diesel. Plug-in vehicles “are the best option for reducing CO2 emissions because of their optimal utilization of electrical energy,” the report states.

The report further notes, “The battery in a plug-in hybrid vehicle can be charged using household electricity. . . . Electric vehicle operation (running on the motor alone) offers a possible cruising distance of 13km, and assuming a driving distance of 25 km per day, the CO2 emissions of the plug-in hybrid vehicle will be about 13% lower than those of the Prius, which already emits 40% to 50% less CO2 than ordinary gasoline-powered vehicles.”

While the report states that by 2010 Toyota expects to be selling to fleet customers plug-ins with long-lasting lithium ion batteries, their introduction may come quicker than that, as we’ll examine in Part 2 of this Special Report, which will highlight Toyota’s apparent growing fear of General Motors and other plug-in car developers.

13 comments

Anonymous   says 11:11 PM

Toyota... you mean those left-wing alarmaists.... er wait:) maybe just maybe Toyota might know where they are talking about!

I try not to get into the whole left-right thing.

This is partly because a lot of halfwits think liberal = left wing (which makes sensible conversation impossible), partly because the left is basically non-existant in the modern day west (as an organised political force) and mostly because the issues I'm talking about can have left wing solutions or right wing solutions - and I'm more interested in trying to fix the problem than pushing some ideological wheelbarrow along.

My only axe to grind (as far as I have one) is that solutions aren't imposed by heavy handed government fiat (ie. I let my libertarian bias show through a little).

Interesting and it raises some points, but my question would be, have new developments been factored into this such as the genetically engineered bacteria that 'eat' anything and 'excrete' crude oil, or the recent research into superconducting levitation?

Anonymous   says 3:14 AM

The only problem with "no heavy-handed government solutions" is what if the other options dont occur soon enough to prevent widespread catastrophe? It seems to me that any plan to "wean America off oil" will require major changes to our transportation paradigm (over 1/4 of our energy use), something the government is heavily involved in. What are your ideas for improving transportation and how can that be done without a "heavy-handed government solution"? I have written about automating and powering our transpotation grid with solar and wind at npts2020.blogspot.com. While I agree 100% it is a government solution, is it heavy-handed? Just trying to get some ideas from thoughtful people.....Cj

jt_3k - I don't think anyone is predicting that crude oil producing bacteria (or even cellulosic ethanol, which is a lot closer to commercial production) will be producing fuel at any meaningful scale in the next decade.

In any case, both suffer the problems posed by biofuels in a world where population is heading towards 9.5 billion people and the amount of arable land is limited.

We are better off using genuine renewables (sun, wind, ocean, geothermal, hydro, biogas) than turning plant life into liquid fuels.

Anonymous   says 11:53 AM

I love it how they say "reducing the number of cars and trucks on the road isn’t an option". Of course Toyota would say that, and coincidentally their product is the perfect solution!

The best way to solve a problem is to avoid it. Let's find a way of living that doesn't require ever more complex and high energy systems. Surely that is healthier and less risky for our wallet, the environment, and our children. We already have all the technology and knowledge to do it.

Peak Oil is a Myth:

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil

We Might Have to Dig Deeper, but Researchers Say There's Plenty Left: 175-315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated recoverable at $15 a barrel in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada. Who knows what they'll discover tomorrow, but we know today, that in Canada's oil sands alone, the supplies may last 100 years.

Ha, ha, ha - thanks for the humour Andrew.

If you want to comment here you should do a bit of research first though.

1. Work out how much oil we currently use (its about 85 million barrels per day, give or take).

2. Work out how long it will take to use up 300 billion barrels of low EROEI, expensive oil from Canadian tar sands (while ignoring the enormous environmental devastation caused when extracting it) if that was all we were relying on.

You'll find the answer is "10 years" - assuming no growth in demand.

Of course, the population of the planet is 6.5 billion people and it will rise to 9.5 billion people by 2050.

Countries like India and China are industrialising and their living standards will rise to match those of the West during that timeframe.

So - in a planet with 6 billion odd people all consuming at the rate about 1.5 billion people do today, my question to you, o bottomless well of oil, is - "where will you get all the energy they want from" ?

Oil production will peak in less than 15 years, even using the optimistic projections from BP and co instead of more doom laden models from the ASPO.

There is a problem which needs fixing - and the first step is to rid yourself of ignorance it seems...

Oh I've done the research, more than you can imagine...

That's 175-315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated recoverable at $15 a barrel. The actual amount of oil, recoverable at higher prices is in the Trillions of barrels just in Alberta. The higher prices will not be a problem since oil is selling at $100 a barrel. This is also ignoring the world's proven reserves of 1.3 Trillion and the remaining untapped potential in the U.S. alone...

Reserves:
- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
- 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
- 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)

There is enough oil left for at least another hundred years. Yes please do the math.

There is a problem that needs fixing and that is getting rid of "Peak Oil" propaganda.

You are confusing oil in place (and extremely optimistic assessments of it at that) with recoverable reserves.

You also ignore the issue of EROI - rising prices don't imply rising recovery rates beyond a certain point - there are limits from both technology (how much oil you can suck from a stone) and economics (borne of net energy return) that influence what can really be recovered - leading to recovery rates that can be (say) 50% for a nice pocket of crude oil in a good reservoir to (say) 0.5% for shale - which isn't be extracted in commercial quantities anywhere in the world and has never been shown to be commercially viable.

Again - you need to ignore the environmental issues to even contemplate alternatives like shale - once you factor in all costs the clean alternatives are both more attractive as well as being feasible.

I am not confusing anything. The EIA clearly states the world's proven reserves to be 1.3 Trillion. That does not take into account unconvential sources and untapped reserves which I listed, with oil at $100 a barrel these are all economical now. Many of these were economical once oil got over $50 a barrel.

EROEI is more propaganda, as it has nothing to do with how much energy is used but the cost of the energy that is used. As long as it makes positive profit it will be done.

Energy Efficiency of Strategic Unconventional Resources (PDF) (DOE)
Thermodynamics and Money (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)

The "environmental issues" are all exaggerated and their is no magic energy that can replace oil at the same economic cost for transportation fuel anytime in the near future. The market will ultimately decide what we use not socialist central planners who flunked economics and seek to cripple the U.S. economy.

Almost everything you said in this latest comment is wrong.

I agree that world conventional reserves are around 1.3 trillion barrels - that is the only part that makes any sense.

The reason I agree with this is because of Iraq's oil reserves, which make the ASPO estimate indefensible - and explains why there are a million dead Iraqis and 250,000+ American troops and mercenaries occupying the country.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/05/control-of-oil.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/06/how-much-oil-does-iraq-have.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/greatest-prize-of-all.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/01/blood-and-oil.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/06/iron-butt-strategy.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/09/iraq-oil-law-and-order.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/11/were-not-in-iraq-for-figs.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/05/iraq-has-largest-oil-reserves-in-world.html

I was hoping you were going to have a rational discussion, then you launched in to "socialist central planners who flunked economics and seek to cripple the U.S. economy".

Are you just another paranoid conservative conspiracy theorist (I'm really hoping you aren't going to claim you are a libertarian) ?

Let me ask you a few questions so we can see just how far from the edges of sanity you have drifted:

1. Matt Simmons is a socialist - true or false ?
2. T Boone Pickens is a socialist - true or false ?
3. Roscoe Bartlett is a socialist - true or false ?
4. James Woolsey (McCain energy and security adviser) is a socialist - true or false ?
5. James Schlesinger is a socialist - true or false ?
6. Tom Whipple (ex CIA ASPO USA analyst) is a socialist - true or false ?
7. Toyota are trying to promote centrally planned world government - true or false ?

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the drift by now.

Its true that there are plenty on the left following the peak oil issue (who I'd mostly classify as agrarian anarchists rather than socialists) - but there are also various species of fascist who are also peak oil advocates - its pretty much an apolitical concept, people from every political corner have used it to promote their political beliefs. At the ned of the day it boils down to this - oil supplies (particularly economically feasible ones) are finite.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/12/peak-oil-and-philosophers-stone.html

It is worth investing some time to understand a couple of things - first, Hotelling theory, which looks at how economics governs resource extraction - shale extraction doesn't magically become economic at $100 or any other price:

http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~jesnow/MineralEcon/habil/econ/econ.htm

You can learn more about shale oil here:

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/question-of-shale.html
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/12/queensland-shale-oil-billions-in.html

And secondly, The Limits To Growth:

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/limits-to-scenario-planning.html

Onto some of your other fallacies - EORI is not "more propaganda" - it determines whether or not you can make a profit (give or take government subsidies, which distort where the uneconomic point falls). The fact that you claim it is meaningless demonstrates you don't understand the issue at all.

On the environment: even if you are a loony tunes climate skeptic and refuse to acknowledge the reality of global warming, I fail to see how anyone could deny the damage done by tar sands extraction, coal mining, coal to liquids plants, oil extraction in the Amazon basin etc etc etc etc.

The fact that you are trying further confirms my opinion that your comments here are entirely political in nature, not based on science or reason.

Ditto for your comment that there is "no magic energy that can replace oil" - we can generate electricity from a wide range of renewable sources (documented extensively here), and we can convert our transport systems to be almost entirely electric - problem solved.

Anonymous   says 5:40 PM

Hi Andrew,

I had a look at the youtube video and Thermodynamics and Money article. Do they really convince you?

The youtube video was shallow and did not interview anyone who disagreed. The hardest hitting question was about what happens when all the low grade resources are used. The expert then waved his hands and assumed uranium or some advanced technology will save the day. Very optimistic all around!

The article was economic smoke and mirrors. Profit does not imply sustainability. Money is an abstraction that can hide deeper problems and external costs. we don't account for everything, and make pleasant assumptions about what will be available far into the future.

You seem to miss the point that peak oil is about flow rates, not reserves. As the biggest ones deplete many smaller ones must take up the slack. That means more equipment, manpower and larger distribution network. There's also the problem that the oil we are pumping is increasingly heavy and sour - hard to pump and high in sulphur content. The sulphur corrodes pipes and requires expensive retrofits to process.

Dismissing EROEI is a bit reckless. You confidently state that we have so many barrels of reserves in shale and tar sands. Let's say you have to burn 90% of that to obtain the remaining 10%. You really don't have as much for fun things like powering Jet Skis as you thought, do you?

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (619) global warming (423) solar power (397) peak oil (355) renewable energy (302) electric vehicles (250) wind power (194) ocean energy (165) csp (159) solar thermal power (145) geothermal energy (144) energy storage (142) smart grids (140) oil (139) solar pv (138) tidal power (137) coal seam gas (131) nuclear power (129) china (120) lng (117) iraq (113) geothermal power (112) green buildings (110) natural gas (110) agriculture (91) oil price (80) biofuel (78) wave power (73) smart meters (72) coal (70) uk (69) electricity grid (67) energy efficiency (64) google (58) internet (50) surveillance (50) bicycle (49) big brother (49) shale gas (49) food prices (48) tesla (46) thin film solar (42) biomimicry (40) canada (40) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) shale oil (37) new zealand (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) arctic ice (33) concentrating solar power (33) saudi arabia (33) queensland (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (30) population (30) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) censorship (25) cleantech (25) bruce sterling (24) ctl (23) limits to growth (23) carbon tax (22) economics (22) exxon (22) lithium (22) buckminster fuller (21) distributed manufacturing (21) iraq oil law (21) coal to liquids (20) indonesia (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) collapse (17) electric bikes (17) michael klare (17) atlantis (16) cellulosic ethanol (16) iceland (16) lithium ion batteries (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) psychology (15) al gore (14) brazil (14) bucky fuller (14) carbon emissions (14) fertiliser (14) matthew simmons (14) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) investment (13) kenya (13) public transport (13) big oil (12) biochar (12) chile (12) cities (12) desertec (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) antarctica (11) cradle to cradle (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) tinfoil (11) toyota (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) methane hydrates (9) pge (9) sweden (9) arrow energy (8) bolivia (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) scenario planning (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) relocalisation (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) local currencies (5) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)