Today, I witnessed probably the most depressing presentation I have ever seen. It had nothing to do with children starving in Africa, or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was a presentation on the future of the World’s energy. Most people are well aware that the large majority of our energy is derived from non-renewable resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal. But does it ever cross our mind while we are filling up our cars at the pump that the resource is finite? I admit that I rarely think about it and when I do, I usually imagine it well into the future with hovercrafts and floating cities. It’s not going to happen in our lifetime, right? The world’s scientists always seem to find new oil reserves or develop new technology to extract more or produce more to meet our ever expanding appetite for energy.
Climate change has been a main feature in the news as of late, with our non-existent winter during December and January, David Suzuki’s cross-Canada tour talking about Global Warming, and of course the recent Academy Award for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I admit that I haven’t seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet. For some reason, seeing a movie about Al Gore’s Power Point presentation isn’t high on my list of things to do. And, I think I have a pretty good handle on Global Warming – why it’s happening, Kyoto (why some people like and others don’t), what we can do, and what the best guesses for the future are.
But, I never really had a grasp on the world’s energy resources. I knew that energy supply was going to be a big issue in the coming decades, but I never knew the gravity of the situation until today.
The presentation, titled “Energy Supply/Demand Trends and Forecasts: Implications for a Sustainable Energy Future for Canada and the World” was given by J. David Hughes of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC). He is a geologist with more than 30 years experience studying the energy resources of Canada for the GSC and the private sector. He has made presentations across Canada and the United States to Federal, Provincial, and municipal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Potential Gas Committee, U.S. National Petroleum Council, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada; and a slew of other policy forums, conferences, etc. All this to say - he knows what he’s talking about.
I wish it would be possible for everyone to see the presentation. In fact I wish everyone had to see it. I can’t explain the overall mood of the audience. You had to be there to see the looks on people’s faces. The most depressing part was seeing slide after slide of statistics and charts of our historical and predicted consumption, with forecasts on production limits and overall supply. I won’t be able to do the presentation justice, nor cover all the material here, but I’ll give you some highlights. If you want to take a look at the complete presentation, you can download a similar presentation he made in early February here. It’s a PDF document around 5MB in size, so be patient and you’ll need Adobe Acrobat to view it.
Here are some of the highlights (or lowlights):
- hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) provided 88% of the world’s primary energy in 2005
- forecasts suggest that by 2030, 86% of our greatly expanded energy demand will continue to be provided by hydrocarbons
- 56% of the world’s energy is currently consumed by developed countries, making up approximately 18% of the world’s population
- energy demand in the developing world is projected to more than double by 2030
- as of 2005, China was importing 48% of its oil, and India was importing almost 70%, meaning that with the projected increases in demand and the fact that India and China produce very little of their own oil, there is going to be much more competition for oil on the world market
- 90% of the oil consumed by the human race has been used since 1958, 50% since 1984, 10% since 2002
- production of oil has exceeded discoveries since 1984, and as of 2005, we’re consuming approximately 4 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel we discover
- OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) is made up of 12 countries – (Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela), has three quarters of the remaining reserves, and 6 of those countries (Libya, Venezuala, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and Indonesia) reached their peak production capacity in the 1970s. Not the friendliest list of countries either, so the geo-political ramifications are quite obvious
- World oil production could peak in the 2008-2012 timeframe
- Even with four- or five-fold expansion of production from the Oil Sands, Canada will only produce about 3% of the world’s forecasted energy supply in 2025.
- 90% of the natural gas consumed by the human race has been used since 1963, 50% since 1988, and 10% since 2002.
- Three-quarters of the remaining natural gas reserves are located in the Former Soviet Union and the Middle East, which is a problem for North America since liquefying natural gas for international transport, is expensive, and entails approximately 15% to 30% energy loss.
- Canada has consumed 63% of our discovered natural gas resources. At current production rates, the remaining reserves will be gone in 15 years. It is HOPED that undiscovered resources will account for another 45 years of natural gas supply at 2005 production rates.
Again, that is just sampling. I didn’t even extract info about coal or electricity.
Another neat little tidbit is, as most of you have likely heard, Canada is one of the largest, if not the largest, per capita consumers of energy in the world. We consume almost twice as much as the average European citizen and 10% more than the U.S. But, why are North Americans such huge consumers? Mainly because the large majority of our infrastructure was built after we started drilling oil (1859), meaning oil was cheap and we built based on that premise, while Europe was built before oil. Hence European cities are much friendlier to bicycle and foot traffic and have much better public transit, while here in North America we continue to build subdivisions without sidewalks because why do we need to accommodate alternative modes of transportation when oil is cheap?
So, what does this all mean? Well, in the next 10-20 years, energy prices are likely going to increase a lot and we’re all going to feel the impact. The impact on my generation and future generations will be profound unless we do something about it. Mother Nature has a way of balancing things out.
So, what do we do? There is no magic solution in the future. Technological developments aren’t going to produce a silver bullet. The fact of the matter is gasoline and diesel fuels have two of the highest energy densities in comparison with other energy carriers. Hydrogen isn’t going to solve anything because it takes energy to create hydrogen. If you’re going to consume hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen, then why not just burn the hydrocarbons directly and avoid the energy loss? Hybrid vehicles aren’t the answer either. They’ll definitely help, but remember it requires energy to build a hybrid vehicle. It’s estimated that a hybrid car has to be driven 65000 miles before it saves more energy than it took to build it.
Again, what do we do? In Mr. Hughes presentation, he gives a lot of different solutions which all should be pursued. However, the main answer is conservation. Consume less. It’s really our only choice. If we don’t consume less then increased efficiencies, technological advancements, and renewable energy use aren’t going to mean anything.
So, the question is – do we want control over the solution or should we let Mother Nature take care of it??
-Steve
Climate change has been a main feature in the news as of late, with our non-existent winter during December and January, David Suzuki’s cross-Canada tour talking about Global Warming, and of course the recent Academy Award for Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I admit that I haven’t seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet. For some reason, seeing a movie about Al Gore’s Power Point presentation isn’t high on my list of things to do. And, I think I have a pretty good handle on Global Warming – why it’s happening, Kyoto (why some people like and others don’t), what we can do, and what the best guesses for the future are.
But, I never really had a grasp on the world’s energy resources. I knew that energy supply was going to be a big issue in the coming decades, but I never knew the gravity of the situation until today.
The presentation, titled “Energy Supply/Demand Trends and Forecasts: Implications for a Sustainable Energy Future for Canada and the World” was given by J. David Hughes of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC). He is a geologist with more than 30 years experience studying the energy resources of Canada for the GSC and the private sector. He has made presentations across Canada and the United States to Federal, Provincial, and municipal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Potential Gas Committee, U.S. National Petroleum Council, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada; and a slew of other policy forums, conferences, etc. All this to say - he knows what he’s talking about.
I wish it would be possible for everyone to see the presentation. In fact I wish everyone had to see it. I can’t explain the overall mood of the audience. You had to be there to see the looks on people’s faces. The most depressing part was seeing slide after slide of statistics and charts of our historical and predicted consumption, with forecasts on production limits and overall supply. I won’t be able to do the presentation justice, nor cover all the material here, but I’ll give you some highlights. If you want to take a look at the complete presentation, you can download a similar presentation he made in early February here. It’s a PDF document around 5MB in size, so be patient and you’ll need Adobe Acrobat to view it.
Here are some of the highlights (or lowlights):
- hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) provided 88% of the world’s primary energy in 2005
- forecasts suggest that by 2030, 86% of our greatly expanded energy demand will continue to be provided by hydrocarbons
- 56% of the world’s energy is currently consumed by developed countries, making up approximately 18% of the world’s population
- energy demand in the developing world is projected to more than double by 2030
- as of 2005, China was importing 48% of its oil, and India was importing almost 70%, meaning that with the projected increases in demand and the fact that India and China produce very little of their own oil, there is going to be much more competition for oil on the world market
- 90% of the oil consumed by the human race has been used since 1958, 50% since 1984, 10% since 2002
- production of oil has exceeded discoveries since 1984, and as of 2005, we’re consuming approximately 4 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel we discover
- OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) is made up of 12 countries – (Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela), has three quarters of the remaining reserves, and 6 of those countries (Libya, Venezuala, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and Indonesia) reached their peak production capacity in the 1970s. Not the friendliest list of countries either, so the geo-political ramifications are quite obvious
- World oil production could peak in the 2008-2012 timeframe
- Even with four- or five-fold expansion of production from the Oil Sands, Canada will only produce about 3% of the world’s forecasted energy supply in 2025.
- 90% of the natural gas consumed by the human race has been used since 1963, 50% since 1988, and 10% since 2002.
- Three-quarters of the remaining natural gas reserves are located in the Former Soviet Union and the Middle East, which is a problem for North America since liquefying natural gas for international transport, is expensive, and entails approximately 15% to 30% energy loss.
- Canada has consumed 63% of our discovered natural gas resources. At current production rates, the remaining reserves will be gone in 15 years. It is HOPED that undiscovered resources will account for another 45 years of natural gas supply at 2005 production rates.
Again, that is just sampling. I didn’t even extract info about coal or electricity.
Another neat little tidbit is, as most of you have likely heard, Canada is one of the largest, if not the largest, per capita consumers of energy in the world. We consume almost twice as much as the average European citizen and 10% more than the U.S. But, why are North Americans such huge consumers? Mainly because the large majority of our infrastructure was built after we started drilling oil (1859), meaning oil was cheap and we built based on that premise, while Europe was built before oil. Hence European cities are much friendlier to bicycle and foot traffic and have much better public transit, while here in North America we continue to build subdivisions without sidewalks because why do we need to accommodate alternative modes of transportation when oil is cheap?
So, what does this all mean? Well, in the next 10-20 years, energy prices are likely going to increase a lot and we’re all going to feel the impact. The impact on my generation and future generations will be profound unless we do something about it. Mother Nature has a way of balancing things out.
So, what do we do? There is no magic solution in the future. Technological developments aren’t going to produce a silver bullet. The fact of the matter is gasoline and diesel fuels have two of the highest energy densities in comparison with other energy carriers. Hydrogen isn’t going to solve anything because it takes energy to create hydrogen. If you’re going to consume hydrocarbons to produce hydrogen, then why not just burn the hydrocarbons directly and avoid the energy loss? Hybrid vehicles aren’t the answer either. They’ll definitely help, but remember it requires energy to build a hybrid vehicle. It’s estimated that a hybrid car has to be driven 65000 miles before it saves more energy than it took to build it.
Again, what do we do? In Mr. Hughes presentation, he gives a lot of different solutions which all should be pursued. However, the main answer is conservation. Consume less. It’s really our only choice. If we don’t consume less then increased efficiencies, technological advancements, and renewable energy use aren’t going to mean anything.
So, the question is – do we want control over the solution or should we let Mother Nature take care of it??
-Steve
3 comments:
Don't brush off An Inconvienent Truth...it sounds like Mr Gore was listening to Hugh and his presentation is very available. Also try watching "Who Killed the Electric Car" and get really pissed.
Love
Mom
Dear Steve;
With hugs and smiles to Gen and Carolyn) I read your article three times simply so that I could absorb and remember the salient details. Here are my insights along the same direction and perhaps a bit different.But it is my insight and take it for just that.
We are living accelerated lives. I grew up in "knowing" many things including an endless supply of energy and the technology based solution culture which would lead to abundance. To be frank that has occured with the western based, baby boomer generation. A life of total abundance.
Then along comes something the world was not ready for, globalization and the rise of China and India. Both booming in many ways and backward in others. But reality 101 there are going to be 55 million cars in China and with the growth of both super states those finate reserves are gone in one generation. Gone 100%. Coal will take a bit longer because we have lots, and China has lots, but lets then tap into Gores theme and I acknowledge him as a good communicator and educator,and this too has an environmental kick back, it is not friendly to climate change. So hold on to your seat we are in for a ride.
But I am more optomistic on both the global warming front and the hydrocarbon front. There is a capacity within human beings, through economies and culture to make huge adjustments, the risk is the speed of change and the lack of knowledge meaning; mental, emotional and spiritual.
But human kind will change and without this pressure it would not happen. So that the change is accelerated can be a positive thing, because it funds new technologies and new paterns of lifestyle.
The danger I see is spiritual, moving from a conception of world abundance to world scarcity will push the human race into winners and losers, and as economic tension has taught us many times over, wars, and conflict.
A value premise based on abundance for generations now dranmitically shifts. With no oil what hapends to our plastic industry, without water what happens to parts of Africa or the American South West?
My concern is less with the pace of technological change which is dramatic and absorbed from generation to generation, but with the speed and acceleration of change of the human psyche and cultural normality. Fear spawns a lot of sillyness and where man in all the stages of evolution reveals itself to be the most base we will see man's inhumanity to man take shape. Abundance vs Scarcity will define the landscape of man.
Now the challenge runs between the feeling of helpess empowerment ( see we recycle so it will all be ok) to lack of empowerment totally in which vacume will spawn new energies.
Are you aware that China is planning to dominate the solar market technologically? I mean dominate and from the engineering perspective and manufacturing side. The planned investment is massive in the hundreds of bilions) yes today they use coal but this is not the long range plan)
For every engineer the west produces the far east is producing a thousand engineering graduates. And they are very serious about technology and its implementation. Remember that the world skyscrapers are no longer in the West, look to China and look to India for profund changes. And they embrace the speed of change better than the west.
I have a friend who writes about our thinking now being at the speed of change and change is going to be profound but change itself is not discouraging, but how we respond to it will be the test.
Thanks Steve and keep up the insights.
Hugs and love to you both;
Uncle Neil
Thanks for the comments Neil. I agree with everything you said. We as a race are very adept at change as we've seen throughout our history. However, we've never experienced a change like the one we will eventually be forced into regarding energy. The oil crisis in the 70s was miniscule in comparison to the potential of what could happen.
To me the growth of the human race is similar to that of a single person. When we’re young change is relatively easy because life is pretty simple (although we may not think so at the time). As we grow older, life becomes more complex and changes bring more "pain" and inconvenience with them. With globalization, our world becomes more and more complex. I have no doubt that we will succeed in the required changes, however, it's the "spiritual" costs that you mentioned that concern me the most. Looking at the World’s current political climate, it’s easy to speculate what would happen during a prolonged energy crisis. However, with limited transportable energy to drive the “war machine” maybe it wouldn’t be so bad.
There absolutely is huge potential in a variety of types of alternative sources of energy. I think we need to ramp up the research, funding, etc. so that the transition from a primarily fossil-fuel based energy system to a more diverse supply of various renewables and fossils will be less “painful”. The more we do now in preparation for when the “wells run dry” the better off we will be.
The unfortunate part is that our governments tend to plan using “election” timelines, instead of long-range thinking. Perhaps that’s an advantage that China has. China and other so-called “developing” nations also have the added advantage of being somewhat less reliant on fossil fuels, which allows them to adapt to change better than the West. A large portion of their population live very simple lifestyles, and they are also currently building a lot of their infrastructure, while most of ours has been in place for many years, making it more difficult to change.
I admittedly don’t know much about what China is doing in terms of development. Hearing that they plan to be a world leader in solar technology is fantastic. Let’s just hope they share with the rest of us. Solar energy is a huge untapped resource. I think the current efficiencies for solar panels are around 10-15%, so there is definitely room for improvement. However, it would be interesting to hear a figure of how much land area covered by solar panels we would need to meet our current energy requirements. I would suspect that at the current efficiencies, we would run out of real estate really fast. In addition, we don’t have a very good way of storing electricity. Our current electrical infrastructure is built on a supply and demand system. If demand increases, we fire up another boiler to produce more electricity. Battery technology is improving but they still tend to be rather bulky and heavy. A lack of good storage system becomes problematic for solar cells on cloudy days when efficiencies decrease further. But, that’s why we have scientists!!
My first blog was a little negative, but the future definitely isn’t bleak. There will be bumps in the road and just like with a heavy laden truck, if we lighten the load, the impact of the bumps will be less. That’s why we need to promote conservation.
- Steve
Post a Comment