How can the world
respond to the twilight of
the era of cheap energy?
(invited)
Gordon J. Aubrecht, II
Ohio State University at Marion
author of Energy
Abstract:
The cost of oil (in constant dollars), and the
gasoline made from it, was higher in the first
half of 2008 than at any time in history. In
response, for the first time in decades,
Americans drove less. For the first time, a
majority of Americans polled understand that
global warming will lead to significant change
in climate. How will these changes affect
future actions of citizens of North America and
the world? What can be done to protect the
future of our children and grandchildren?
What has happened to the price of oil?
You’ve heard about the price of a
barrel being over $140:
160
Nominal World Oil Price (Dollars)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
03020131Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Dec99
29Dec00
28Dec01
27Dec02
Date
26Dec03
24Dec04
23Dec05
22Dec06
21Dec07
19Dec08
Here’s a headline from under two weeks ago:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/458475
The Associated Press
Oil sets new record near $146 a barrel
Jul 11, 2008 08:07 AM
Pablo Gorondi, The Associated Press
Oil prices spiked Friday as continued tensions in the Middle East and concerns of
renewed violence in Nigeria pushed the price for a barrel of oil to a record near
$146.
By midday in Europe, light, sweet crude for August delivery rose $3.53 at $145.18 a
barrel electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices at one point
jumped well over $4 to a record $145.98.
Oil prices had fallen $10 over two days to start the week and as oil rebounded
Friday, Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 62, or 0.61 per cent, to 11,155.
In London, August Brent crude rose $3.34 to $145.37 a barrel on the ICE Futures
exchange. …
As you’ve no doubt heard, lately inflation
has had an effect. What does the real price of
oil look like? Is it as bad as the last slide?
Maybe it’s all inflation, not a real price rise.
1/3/08
1/3/07
1/3/06
1/3/05
1/3/04
1/3/03
1/3/02
1/3/01
1/3/00
1/3/99
1/3/98
1/3/97
World Oil Price (2000 Dollars)
Inflation-adjusted oil price (2000 $):
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
Nope. It wasn’t our imagination
…
The actual price of gas really has
gone up! Steeply.
So, the price rise was not all inflation.
You can see Hurricane Katrina in these data
(August 2005). At the time, we thought it was
an evanescent effect, but that price rise
essentially stuck … and grew.
Oil prices did not really fall after Katrina until
late 2006-early 2007. The price didn’t fall far.
Then, oil price rose again steadily from these
lows.
What is responsible for the rise?
After all, we had a rise in oil prices in the
1970s …
Hmm …
Let’s pick some of these countries and look
at per capita energy consumption.
Per capita energy consumption
Canada and the US are far out front.
Who uses petroleum?
Biggest petroleum increases since
1960, 2000
Table 11.10, 2007 Annual Energy Review
factor inc.
since 1960
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Mexico
South Korea
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
Total OECD
Brazil
China
India
Russia
Total Non- OECD
World
1.69
2.50
3.22
2.93
6.82
5.67
216.00
14.90
0.95
1.11
2.13
7.22
41.35
15.06
5.35
2.97
factor inc.
since 2000
0.11
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.06
-0.02
0.01
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.50
0.21
0.09
0.23
0.10
Per capita oil consumption
Canada and the US lead the pack
Pres. Bush’s idea of using alternative fuels to solve
North America’s addiction to oil …
Who uses natural gas?
Clearly, the per capita results are skewed differently from the
net consumption. Canada and the US are again among the
greatest users per capita.
Electricity
What do we see here?
The Unites States is a “big gorilla,”
but China and India are growing
rapidly in energy use, including
petroleum. Canada has an outsize
effect as well.
Consumers over 5 MWh/person/yr
Canada and the US are still “big
gorillas” but we can see that Norway,
Sweden, and Finland are using their
abundant hydropower to give their
population access to electricity. China
does not even appear on this histogram.
Where is China?
Consumers under 5 MWh/person/yr
The average Canadian
now uses 37% more
electricity than the
average American.
We can see that an average
American uses over ten times as
much electricity as an average
Chinese.
What will happen when the average
Chinese electricity use reaches that of the
average American?
What will happen when the average
Chinese family has as many cars as the
average American family?
We can also see that the average
American uses over 25 times as much
electricity as the average Indian.
What will happen when the average
Indian electricity use reaches that of
the average American?
What will happen when the average
Indian family has as many cars as the
average American family?
What can we do?
This is a serious problem … The US currently “consumes” a
whopping 99.54 EJ/yr.
Let’s see how much energy China would “consume” at the US
per capita rate:
99.54 EJ/yr x 1,321,851,888/304,601,492
= 414 EJ (currently, 64 EJ, an increase of 350 EJ—5.5 times
as much as now).
Now, do the same for India:
99.54 EJ/yr x 1,129,866,154/304,601,492
= 354 EJ (currently, 15 EJ, an increase of 340 EJ—about 23
times as much).
More electricity probably means more coal
generating plants. More coal means more coal
mining.
Which of the following countries
has more than a thousand coal mine
fires currently burning?
a.
b.
c.
d.
China
India
Indonesia
The United States
The real answer (not listed):
All of the above.
China, India, and the US probably have about 6000 fires
apiece burning. Indonesia probably has only about 3000.
Bringing just these two countries to the US
standard would involve generating seven
times as much energy as the US does
currently. Given that these countries are
mainly burning coal for electricity, that
means that these two countries alone would
emit something like seven times as much
greenhouse gas as the US currently does, or
worse.
In 2006, the US emitted about 6 Gt of CO2. China emitted 5.3
Gt; India emitted 1.2 Gt. Last year, China surpassed the US as
the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitter.
Let’s do some simple arithmetic …
If China gets to US standards with current technology, it will
emit 5.5 times as much greenhouse gas as now every year--or
~ 29 Gt. India will emit 22.7 times as much greenhouse gas as
now each year--or ~ 27 Gt. The increase from these two is an
additional
24 Gt + 26 Gt
= 50 Gt of CO2.
And this doesn’t include CO2
from those mine fires!
Carbon dioxide emissions
You can see that transportation is a big emitter of CO2. What’s
happening there in the various countries?
The US has 250,851,833 registered vehicles. About 8 M are
sold each year.
Canada has 27,577,524 registered vehicles. About 1.7 M are
sold each year.
Europe has about 170 million vehicles. About 3 M are sold each
year.
China has about 120 million private vehicles. It had just 2.9
million in 1996. About 11 M are now being sold every year.
India has about 10 million vehicles. About 1 M are now being
sold each year.
About one million cars and seven million motorbikes were sold
in India in 2007. The new Tata Nano, which sells for $2500,
was introduced early in 2008. Current sales projections are
250,000 sold per year.
Indian
traffic
jam
So, the number of cars sold in India is
expected to rise dramatically—competitors
are trying to design small cheap cars for the
Indian market. At its low price, the Nano has
few pollution controls, but it gets good
mileage (about 56 mpg expected). Still, there
will be increased pollution, increases in
traffic jams in the cities (already pretty
jammed), etc.
The same is true in China. Manufacturers are
increasing sales at around 30 to 40% per year.
Chinese traffic jam (Xiamen, south China)
The proportion of US drivers is
saturated, but this is not true in
India or China. This is a huge
future emissions problem—of
both “normal” pollutants and
carbon dioxide.
Per capita auto ownership
Carbon dioxide emissions
So, in these immortal words (of
James Lovell, for those of you
old enough to remember Apollo
13, or to have seen the film):
“Houston, we have a problem.”
What can we do?
We must do something, or we
will live in a much warmer,
much less hospitable world.
Politicians have made
suggestions …
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/11/MNNP11N0G7.DTL
The San Francisco Chronicle
Speier seeks national speed limit to save gas
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, July 11, 2008
(07-11) 04:00 PDT Washington - --Congress is searching for ways to address rising gas prices,
and one Bay Area lawmaker thinks she’s found one: Lower the speed limit on highways.
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, in her first bill as a member of Congress, is proposing a
national speed limit of 60 mph for freeways in urban areas and 65 mph in less populated areas.
It’s a throwback to the 1970s, when Congress and President Richard Nixon imposed a 55 mph
national speed limit in response to the Arab oil embargo. While supporters say the law saved
lives and fuel, it was unpopular with many drivers and some states balked at enforcing it.
Congress repealed it in 1995.
But with the average price of gas at $4.10 per gallon nationwide and $4.60 in San Francisco,
Speier said, reducing driving speeds could save families hundreds of dollars a year. “There is
no need to wait for OPEC or the oil companies to help us out,” Speier said. “Every driver can
effect change simply by easing up on their right foot.”
…
After 1973 we
had a national 55
mi/h speed limit.
We also had lines
at gas stations,
and stations ran
out of gas.
And we are responding this time by driving less, just as
then:
The Seattle Times
Saturday, July 5, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
30 billion fewer miles driven, and counting
According to AAA, the average two-car family now would
spend about $6,200 a year to gas up its vehicles.
By Tony Pugh, McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/585815.html
The Kansas City Star
Posted on Mon, Apr. 21, 2008
Gasoline usage heads down
By Steve Everly, The Kansas City Star
U.S. drivers are doing something they haven’t done
for nearly two decades — consume less gasoline.
The Los Angeles Times
U.S. highway trust fund veers toward crisis
Count it among the victims of rising gas prices. Billions of dollars in road projects
are at risk.
By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 21, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Soaring gasoline prices are hurting Uncle Sam in the wallet too.
As motorists cut back on their driving and buy more fuel-efficient cars, the
government is taking in less money from the federal gasoline tax.
The result: The principal source of funding for highway projects will soon hit a big
financial pothole. The federal highway trust fund could be in the red by $3.2 billion
or more next year.
…
Highway trust fund receipts were down more than $2 billion through May
compared with the same period a year ago, a Treasury Department report
said.
And maybe there are good
consequences, too, just as
after 1973 …
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasdeath12-2008jul12,0,1135910.story
The Associated Press
Study: As gas prices go up, auto deaths decline
9:23 AM PDT, July 11, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Two researchers say today’s high gas prices could cut auto
deaths by as much as a third as driving decreases. The effect may be particularly
dramatic among teenage drivers, who are more price-sensitive than adults.
A study by professors Michael Morrisey of the University of Alabama and David
Grabowski of Harvard Medical School found that for every 10 percent increase in
gas prices there was a 2.3 percent decline in auto deaths. For drivers aged 15 to 17
the decline was 6 percent and for ages 18 to 21 it was 3.2 percent.
The study looked at fatalities through 2006, before the latest run up in gas prices.
With gas now averaging over $4 a gallon, Morrisey said he expects to see a drop of
about 1,000 deaths a month.
Business as usual is unacceptable.
I haven’t even mentioned peak oil
in this talk, which will (when it is
recognized to have happened) have
a profound impact on everyone.
We need to advance renewable
energy development, reduce
power plant and automotive
emissions substantially, and
develop energy technology.
It’s for our children’s sake.
Here’s an ad on today’s LA
Times website:
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
We can’t wait, we can’t delay any
longer. We physics teachers need
to raise our voices in support of
rational approaches by the public
and our elected representatives.
We must hold their feet to the
fire, or we all will get burned!