Just over a year ago, Bob Hirsch’s
presentation at ASPO was something like “there isn’t an energy problem; there
is a liquids problem”. He went on to
recall the societal disruption of the 1973 oil embargo in the USA, and
suggested that peak oil disruptions would, by analogy, be far more than simply
disruptive.
While there have been significant strains,
so far there hasn’t been a collapse. Indeed,
oil production continues to edge upwards year after year. I don’t think there will be a collapse. As I've said privately,
those arguing for peak oil should declare a victory and move on. The consistently higher price for oil over
the past decade is evidence that the peak oil predictions were essentially
correct. But the fact is that the
predictions were only valid for the boundary conditions, and these have now
changed.
Whether the economic setting for oil is
measured by price, EROI, rig count, or in some other way, there can be no doubt
that the oil exploitation environment has changed significantly over the past
decade. This tells me that the entire
peak oil analysis has a significant economic component. It is not that there is suddenly an increased
physical supply of crude oil as the result of higher prices; rather the higher
prices are but one manifestation of the fact that the entire economic
environment has changed in ways that are very complex. By analogy, the bulk chemistry of a slate and
a gneiss are similar, but the mineral assemblages are very different as a
result of the differing pressure and temperature conditions. In the energy economy the relative prices of
oil, coal, natural gas and non-fossil fuels are changing; and the energy
assemblage of our economy is reorganizing itself.
The past 60+ years have been a relatively
steady state with respect to energy economics.
Oil has been cheap, with additional supplies being available without
much relative price increase. That is no
longer true. As the economy adjusts, the
the relative costs of different forms of energy are temporarily out of balance.
Of course, what we are all really
interested in is the future. It seems to
be part of the human condition that we look forward, project, and otherwise
plan for tomorrow. And we would all like
to know how the changes that the world energy economy is currently experencing
will play out.
I think one of the ways to look at this
issue is to consider not peak oil, but rather to look at fossil fuels as a
single energy source. What can we say
about “peak fossil fuel”?
This is the combined data for fossil fuels
over the past 150+ years. When this data
is analysed using the mathematics that Deffeyes, following Hubbert, used to
predict the oil peak the result is that the peak is already significantly behind
us. But the data clearly shows that this
is not the case.
Note that Hubbert’s original paper foresaw
a smooth transition from oil to nuclear power, which is probably the reason
that we tend to use a roughly symmetrical curve to describe peak oil. If the economy becomes truly constrained with
respect to energy due to shortage of the supply of oil, or I would argue of
total fossil fuels, then there will be no smooth transition to something else. The result will be more like Bob Hirsch’s
predictions for oil, and the downside will be quite abrupt as the economy shuts
down. Of couse, this means that almost
half of the ultimate recoverable reserves would then be left in the ground,
unexploited.
My own thinking is that the total fossil
fuel peak is still some ways away. And
whether the peak will be symmetric or a rather sudden collapse is still
unknown. In brief, the peak can be
symmetric only if fossil fuels are replaced by new non-fossil fuel energy
sources that cost less. If these are not
available, the result will be collapse with a more sudden decrease in
production levels.
The importance of relative costs can be
seen within the total fossil fuels mixture.
The data is from the long time series that Rembrandt Koppelaar published in The
Oil Drum (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8936)
– thanks Rembrandt. The gas numbers have
probably been significantly under-reported, as even today they don’t include
much of the gas that is flared in association with oil production.
As the above figure shows, and as we all
know, the initial fossil fuel was coal, followed by exploitation of oil, and
finally of natural gas. This reflects
the relative difficulty, i.e. cost, of transporting solids, liquids and
gasses.
One of the interesting things about fossil
fuels is that the three types are relatively interchangeable. Note, I do say relatively. This both supports aggregating them for total
energy analysis, and provides some insight into energy analyses by looking at
the details of how one substitutes for another.
For example, natural gas is replacing coal for electricity generation in
North America and the reverse is happening in Europe. This is due to differences in transportation costs
for supplying the respective fuels in these two markets, and the speed of the
change has been quite rapid. The
technology is similar, making it both familiar and substitutable. Banks, governments and utility companies like
this, as it means the technologic risk is low.
Transportation – ocean shipping, land
transport, air – can also substitute, probably more than is generally
anticipated. For example, North America,
with more than a 4:1 energy cost benefit driving the process, is moving to use
natural gas for fleets and long-distance trucking. These are the markets which have the lowest
infrastructure support investment, and these markets likely will provide the
foundation for more widespread use.
Furthermore, as is the case for electricity generation, the technologies
for transporting, storing and using natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel are
in use, so there is minimal technologic risk to investments.
Which brings us back to the role of
economics in determining the energy mix for the economy. The present change from an oil-dominated
energy economy to something different seems, at present, to be towards a
combined fossil fuel energy economy.
This raises concerns both about when will we reach the inevitable fossil
fuel peak, and for the amount of global warming that will be engendered by the
time such a peak is reached. But the
continuing steep rise of total fossil fuel production makes me sceptical that
the economic system has yet found an alternative for society’s energy demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment