This particular chapter takes a more detailed look at the various oil demand projections by comparing each organisation’s take on the main economic forces that shape their final numbers. Despite the huge uncertainty, there is near universal agreement on some of these forces. But opinion is divided on the biggest question of all – will supply be able to meet demand.
This chapter looks at the recent history of the many organisations that make energy demand forecasts. Their track record has a lot to be desired but understanding the huge uncertainties involved highlights just how easy they are to get wrong.
This chapter attempts to cover the last 150 years of oil consumption with the aim of discovering the main economic forces that have helped shape how and where oil is used today. By understanding these forces we can begin to understand how future oil demand will unfold.
This chapter attempts to explain why oil depletion is not simply a problem of “will we run out” but rather a more complicated supply and demand problem concerning energy security. The size of the tap is more important than the size of the tank.
This is the first chapter in an in depth, multi part, info-graphic based series that attempts to explain all the ins and outs of peak oil, why it is inevitable and what is likely to happen in the coming years. It is intended to be much like a book with separate, complimentary chapters that help properly educate people on all the ideas and issues surrounding the topic so that whoever watches will have a good enough understanding to be able to make some sensible decisions/comments. The emphasis is on “properly educate”, I want to help create a definitive guide that people can turn to when they want to learn about this incredibly important issue.
This particular chapter attempts to explain why oil is the lifeblood of today’s modern economy and how any major fluctuations in oil price can expose the many inherent weaknesses in this globalised system that feeds, clothes and houses us.
This 105 minute informal talk with a panel of about 10 members of the US Energy Security Council which includes many former heads of the military, US Senate, oil industry and governmental bodies most of which have “honorable” before their names (Ex CIA Boss James Woolsey, Senator and Professor Gary Hart and Alan Greenspan to name a few).
While this is not a new subject, this event attempted to frame the debate as there being a monopoly in one of the most profoundly important sectors in our economy and that monopoly is a great weakness which leave us all exposed if we do not do something about it. I am of course talking about oil being the only real source of energy for all the cars, trucks and airplanes currently operating in the world today. This council argues that the principle role of government is to create markets and have them work. A monopoly is an example of a market not working. In this regard they argue that they are not being anti-oil but rather pro choice or pro fuel choices.
The decades of inaction on developing a proper energy policy has meant that the US has developed one by default. That is: “We do have an energy policy. We rely on a single fuel. We buy it from a cartel controlled by people who don’t like us very much. And every five years we go to war to maintain that privilege”. The council members are deeply worried about the effects that an inevitable oil price shock will have on the US economy and the people within it as history has shown these price spikes help trigger recessions (I will assume they are also concerned about the rest of the world but as they are talking to an American audience we’ll let it slide).
Talk covers a range of issues, such as:
Perhaps the most important point is that all cars built today should be flex fuel vehicles. It only costs $100 to add in a sensor chip that detects the fuel on board and makes small changes to the fuel injection and spark plug timing to enable the engine to burn whatever mixture of ethanol or petrol/gasoline is in the tank. $100 buys flexibility for the fleet of the future and may in the long run save us billions, potentially trillions of dollars. This has happened successfully in Brazil and should be an easy mandate to pass by governments in the rest of the world. Key word should.
The same goes for developing a sensible policy on energy.
Biofuels, Conventional oil, Crude Oil, fossil fuel, Gasoline, Geo-politics, Oil, Transport, United States, VideoAndreas Schafer, director of the Martin Center for Architectural and Urban Studies at the University of Cambridge, discusses the impact of the transportation sector with respect to climate destabilisation (change) and growing carbon emissions. Specifically he talks about the specific factors at play including passenger kilometres travelled (PKT), energy intensity per PKT and emissions intensity of given fuels with data for various countries at differing stages of economic prosperity. Andreas finds a lot of commonality between the amount of time different countries populations spend travelling and the proportion of GDP they spend doing so.
While there are vast differences in emissions impact between countries they all seem to follow a similar trend as they develop, it’s just where they lie on that curve. As people get richer they generally spend more on faster modes of transport (walking > bike > car > train > plane/high speed rail) and cover more kilometres/miles. This is compounded by the fact that as countries get richer, there has been a tendency for more women in the workforce which has resulted in less children and lower occupancy rates in vehicles (as well as more money to spend on travel). The existing trends for energy intensity are also heading in the wrong direction becoming higher and not lower. The gains made in engine efficiency have been more than offset by larger, faster and more powerful vehicles and the example of Toyota Camry has shown that 24 years of advancement has resulted in a 20% increase in fuel use. He also quickly summarises the relative carbon intensity of various fuel/vehicle combinations although most of the alternative fuels are a long way away from being at the scale our current conventional oil fuels are used.
Andreas then looks to the future to see what the potential impact policies can help to guide technology and social/behavioural patterns into creating a sustainable transport systems. In short, with the most effective policies in place we might be able to reduce emissions intensity of the worldwide by 30-50%, the impact of massive populations of the emerging countries such as China behaving more like western countries is likely to lead to at best a doubling of emissions from transport. Without these policies it could be 3 to 4 times more than today.
For a link to his co-authored official work – Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World – and raw data from some of his slides please visit www.transportandclimate.com
Climate Change, Climate Destabilisation, Conventional oil, Stanford University, Transport, VideoDefinitely worth a watch. The big boys from the IEA give their take on the very important annual World Energy Outlook report which was released November 2010.
Click the link for the csis.org page detailing the event, the speakers and the slides that go with the presentations.
I have seen Adam Brandt’s name pop up a few times in some of the life cycle analysis literature I have seen so it was good to see him speak as part of the Stanford Uni series I am slowly making my way through.
You can probably divide this talk up in to 2 parts. The first 15 mins is quite a good overview of the whole peak oil debate and Adam’s quite reasonable take on it. The problem is of course is it is virtually impossible to predict the future (which is the whole point of the rest of the talk) but Adam goes through a lot of the issues which helps wrap your mind about what the various future pathways could be. But in general, conventional oil will decline and other oil/liquid fuel sources will replace this. I am in broad agreement with his conclusions that oil prices will have to be in the $100-150 per barrel range to facilitate this and that greenhouse gases will rise as we make the switch. Although it doesn’t capture what oil price shocks and environmental shocks from climate change will do.
The second part of the talk becomes a lot more academic-y as Adam describes his computer simulation model that attempts the impossible of seeing what the future will look like. His approach is take a whole bunch of variables, such as economic growth, oil depletion, carbon tax, etc and show what the various ranges of what could happen with these would do to the overall oil supply picture. Adam is well aware of the limitations of doing this but also sees the value in using these types of models to gain a better understanding of how all these different variables tie together, with the overall aim of trying to find some win-win policy options that would be “robust” no matter what assumptions we decide to make about the future or the uncertainty of these assumptions.
So definitely check out the first 15 mins and then you can judge if you want to check out the rest.
January 7, 2009 lecture by Lee Schipper for the Woods Energy Seminar. In his talk “When the Rubber Hits the Road: The Real Story on Fuel Economy in the US and other Developed Countries, with Implications for Developing Asia,” Schipper discusses better and more realistic fuel economy options in the US and other industrialized nations.Lee Schipper is a Senior Research Engineer at the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency at Stanford University.
His discussion on solutions covers the main areas for improved fuel efficiency and how the difficult areas of transport policy and urban design usually get ignored. Until these are properly addressed vehicle use will only expand in undesirable ways causing gridlock in our cities and further dependence on oil. Technology and pricing can only go so far in the quest for a sustainable transport model.
