Debate Team 1A Research Paper – Pro Fossil Fuels Introduction The world population topped six billion people in 1999, and in the thirteen years since then it has hit seven billion people. With most estimates predicting we will reach eight billion inhabitants by 2025, the most obvious question is will our planet be able to support this long-­‐
term surge in growth? More specifically, where will we get the energy to match the inevitable increases in demand? We cannot expect renewable and alternative methods of producing energy to meet the current worldwide demand, let alone the predicted increased future demand. Fossil fuels represent the majority of the means by which we get our energy today. These methods involving coal, oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels have withstood the test of time, providing the world with reliable, safe, and relatively inexpensive energy for decades. These fuels are readily available, extraction and burning technologies are constantly improving, and newly discovered resource deposits are constantly adding to what we are able to use to meet our energy demands. Additionally, several of the world’s largest companies are specifically in the coal, oil, or natural gas industries and between them employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. A large, centralized grid that uses fossil fuels to produce energy is the way to go. Supply and Demand To illustrate exactly the global energy situation that we have on our hands, let us first look at recent and predicted world energy demands. According to the Energy Information Administration, a U.S. federal agency, in 2006 the world consumed the equivalent of 469 quadrillion Btu’s, and this is expected to rise 64% to 770 quadrillion Btu’s by 2035 (EIA -­‐ Forecasts). Regarding the total consumption in 2006, just over one-­‐third of the energy demand was met through production by petroleum. Including other fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas (though there is debate over whether or not natural gas is actually a fossil fuel), 86.1% of worldwide energy demands in 2006 were met by “big energy” fossil fuels. In that same year, 7.3% of demand was met by renewable energy (the majority of this was hydro), and 5.9% of demand was met by nuclear energy (EIA -­‐ Overview). While it’s true that renewable energy technologies are expanding and production is on the rise (especially with solar energy), it is entirely unrealistic to expect renewable energy to assume complete responsibility of the energy production that fossil fuels currently make possible. The most optimistic estimates predict renewable energies supplying 77% of the world’s power by 2050, and this is even assuming a drop in demand (due to more restricted lifestyles). Lewis Page from The Register certainly seems to disagree with these optimistic estimates. He says that because humans enjoy living the way they are, and because countries like China want improved living conditions, demand for energy will do nothing but skyrocket. Basically, because people like comfort, there is no way the world can generate 77% of its power from renewables by 2050. The European Union is striving for 20% of energy coming from renewables by 2020, which they are on track to meet, but a milestone such as this one makes 77% by 2050 seem rather unlikely (The Register). The aforementioned figures are, of course, fairly broad averages -­‐ even the European Union consists of 27 countries. Therefore it is important to note that this proposed gradual integration of renewable energies will be much more difficult in some countries, especially those with larger populations and higher demand, which is even more reason to continue with our current conventional fossil fuel energy production. China, for example, produces more than 70% of its electricity via coal. And while the country does have a large amount of unoccupied land that could contain large wind farms, solar panels, or other renewable alternatives, it is not currently economically feasible to construct and maintain the equipment and means to harvest these renewable energies and then deliver the energy to 1.3 billion people. The demand is simply too great. This task becomes even less possible if an established centralized grid is not used. If each device that renewably generates energy is not added to the existing grid, a whole new process must be devised for delivering energy to the consumer. Needless to say this would be costly, and wasteful if the current system would no longer have a useful purpose. The United States is in a similar situation as China: even though we have significantly less people there still exists a very high demand per person for energy. And while we certainly have the land-­‐space for renewable alternatives, we would need to plaster an area twice the size of Maine with solar panels to meet America’s current energy demands. In the cases of these two large countries, space is not the issue, but getting the energy to each inhabitant through anything other than a well-­‐established, centralized energy grid is simply out of the question. And then of course there are the countries without the luxury of space that the United States and China have. The entire country of England would have to be covered in wind turbines just to meet its own energy demands. Even if current demand could be met by alternatives to fossil fuels, in countries where abundant land is not available, renewable energies lacking space-­‐efficiency are certainly not an option. A coal power plant products up to a kilowatt per square meter, and this figure falls to 9 watts and 1.5 watts for solar and wind power, respectively (Yale e360). Renewable energies as we know them today would take up entirely too much space to meet the demand for energy. With the space, cost, and distribution limitations that come with renewable energy and a decentralized grid, it’s no wonder that by 2020 most of the world will still be at least 50-­‐70% dependent on fossil fuels for energy. But is this really a problem? At 2009 consumption rates, the world has roughly enough coal to power itself for the next 150 years. Some people believe this is so far off that the human race may even destroy itself through other means (nuclear, drastic climate change, hunger, etc.) by that time. Supposing that doesn’t happen, and we are still using coal in the 22nd century, there is still little reason to worry. The 150-­‐year supply of coal is not the entire earth’s quantity of coal, but simply the quantity of coal we are able to reach now with current technology – about a trillion tons. There may be 20 trillion additional tons of coal underground that we can’t get at now, but as mining, mapping, and burning technologies (to more effectively burn different types of coal) improve we will be able to use more of these deposits (Greenbang). And that of course would allow us to produce energy from coal for far longer than the 150-­‐year estimate. But what about our cars? They don’t run on the energy produced from coal, won’t we run out of oil soon? With current reserves and current demand, estimates range between 43 and 122 years left of oil reserves (MSNBC). In fact, the more optimistic estimate came from Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who say there are 3.74 trillion barrels of oil left. Even going off the low-­‐end estimate, that’s at least four decades of one of the most potent energy sources out there. In fact, assuming average production numbers, the power densities for wind energy and oil are around 1.2 and 27 watts per square meter, respectively. Even solar power comes up short at 6.7 watts per square meter. (Forbes). Such low energy capabilities cannot possibly meet consumer energy demands. Even if renewable energies had power densities comparable to that of fossil fuels, what is going to fuel the 77 million new cars and commercial vehicles made in 2010 (Wiki – Automotive Industry)? And while some of those are hybrid vehicles, in the same year less than 2.5% of cars sold were hybrids. There is extensive research regarding hybrid vehicle technology, but developing low-­‐cost hybrid passenger cars and low-­‐cost hybrid commercial vehicles (semi-­‐
trucks, for instance) are two very different things. It will be a long while before the worlds vehicles are 100% hybrid, if ever, which means we will need oil for a long while as well. Car production is on the rise, mostly due to China’s massive increase in production, and no amount of wind, solar, or hydroelectric generated energy is going to fuel those millions of gasoline engines. And we can stretch the 43-­‐year conservative estimate farther by imposing mandates on the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Doing away with Hummers, Escalades, and other unnecessarily large gas-­‐guzzling SUV’s will allow us to make more of the remaining oil supply. Also, most cars average more than a decade on the road, so the demand for oil is not going anywhere but up. And if oil is replaced with renewable alternatives, then millions of vehicles (that are still being made daily) with no means to power them will be worth no more than their weight in scrap metal. Efficiently and effectively recycling that many cars would be an economic nightmare. This leads to a new question. Supposing we do have over a 100 years of oil left, can we continue production at a high enough rate to meet demand? The world only has so much capacity to deliver oil to consumers. M.K. Hubbert’s “peak oil” concept states that at some point, oil production will hit a maximum and eventually fall into decline (similar to a bell curve), meaning at some point it will fail to meet consumer demand. Some argue that we already hit peak oil at some point in the past 5 years, but the world is actually at a plateau right now, and has been since around 2004. In that year, the world averaged just under 70.6 million barrels of oil produced per day. Through 2010, the world stayed between 70.6 million and 72.4 million barrels of oil produced per day. For there to be a “peak” on the curve, there also has to be a consistent decline in production. Between 1980 and 1983 world production fell more than 10%, but that obviously wasn’t the result of hitting peak oil production in the 1970s (as Hubbert had predicted). Additionally, between 1988 and 1995, world oil production hovered on a plateau between 58.6 million and 60.4 million barrels produced per day, a range almost identical to the 2004-­‐2010 plateau. Yet a short five years later in 2000, world oil production was up almost 10% (Index Mundi). It seems ridiculous to say that we have passed the point of peak oil production when similar trends have occurred so recently. Employment Outside of supply and demand, there are countless other factors to consider that suggest making the switch to renewables is not our best option. Converting to alternative energies would cause a lot of people currently working in big energy to lose their jobs. Gas and oil companies are some of the biggest in the world meaning a lot of economies rely on them for security. Though renewable resources could eventually provide the same security and number of jobs that fossil fuels provide now, the transfer is still out of our reach at the moment. These large Oil and Gas companies make up 9 out of the 20 lf the largest businesses in the world. (Wiki – List of Companies by Revenue) These companies employ thousands of people many of whom have a college education that is geared towards working with fossil fuels that will be displaced in the event of switching over to renewable energy. Exxon alone has almost 100,000 employees. (Exxon Mobil)This transition will also displace many people and destroy the job security that they had for many years. Though this transition of jobs is not a major stopping point for renewable energy it is something that needs to be taken into consideration. Many write this transfer off as nothing but it can have a huge impact on a lot of peoples’ lives. Renewable resources are not as perfect as many people would suggest. Like fossil fuels they have disadvantages and advantages. Solar energy for example has many issues that need to be dealt with before it can be used as a main source of energy. The area collectors are large requiring a lot of land space and material. The locations of solar farms are limited since the geography of the land can limit radiation. Solar energy only works well in the daytime and on non-­‐cloudy days making it unreliable in some occurrences and we do not have the technology to store enough energy for the down time at this period in time. Another disadvantage is that Solar cells are still extremely expensive and contain dangerous material that if exposed to humans can harm them. (The Benefits and Disadvantages of Renewable Energy Resources) Specific Downsides to Renewables Wind is by far the best of the alternative energy sources though even it has a few disadvantages. Many people have an issue with the design of wind turbines because they do kill a small number of birds each year. They have also been called noisy and unsightly. Locations for wind farms are also slightly limited due to the availability and stability of the wind in the area. Hydro electricity is also a widely used source of energy, one of the largest renewable energies thus far. It is also one of the most damaging on the environment. Dams have severe ecological effects and cause issues downstream. The issues include the decay of vegetation along the riverbed which can lead to the buildup of methane, altering the natural flow of the river affecting the wildlife in the area, and these dams can cause flooding easily. The biggest limiting factor for these dams is lack of viable places to build them. (The Benefits and Disadvantages of Renewable Energy Resources) Geothermal is the last of the renewable resources. It is very site specific, more so than any of the other renewable resources. Geothermal plants can bring up toxic chemicals when obtaining the steam. Drilling geothermal reservoirs can be an expensive task. All of these Renewable resources do share the fact that they have large startup costs. Startup Costs Startup costs for all renewable resources are huge. $211 million was spent on renewable resources in 2010 alone throughout the world with little effect. It is extremely expensive right now to set up any form of renewable resources making it impossible for it to be implemented in poorer countries and remote areas. Even in rich countries it is a huge investment to go in the direction of renewable resources. Not only are the startup costs expensive but there is some upkeep involved and requires long-­‐term investment that not many businesses are willing to make. In order for renewable resources to get off the ground our government has to step up so until then big energy is the way to go. Right now geothermal energy and hydroelectricity are the cheapest and the only viable sources of renewable energy at this point. This is most likely the biggest stumbling block in the way of renewable energy so far making things such as clean coal and more efficient/cleaner burning oil a much more likely alternative in the future. Fossil fuels are going to be used for many years to come due to it just not being viable to make a big switch to renewable energy. Smaller steps will need to take place into the distant future. The government will need to switch its funding from big energy to renewable energy but that seems like it will not happen for quite some time. (Renewable energy commercialized) New Technology One new technology that is becoming more popular today is called clean coal. Currently coal produces over 50 percent of the United States energy but it is the most harmful to the environment (Yale e360). Most of the coal is burned which creates the electricity we use. Also when the coal is burned it gives off toxic fumes into the environment which consists of Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Dioxide (EIA). Each of these toxic fumes contributes to different environmental problems and the biggest one has to deal with the Carbon Dioxide which is the primary greenhouse gas. With clean coal we are able to eliminate most of the toxic fumes that hurt the environment and also help control global warming. The main way clean coal works is by purifying and washing the coal in a special way so when you burn the coal it gives off fewer emissions. One way they do this is by passing emissions through a chemical scrubber which contain amines that react with and trap the carbon dioxide. Another way they remove the carbon dioxide is by burying it securely underground. They do this by compressing the gas and inject it under pressure down a pipeline into redundant coal seam and/or gas wells. This will help oil companies because injecting carbon dioxide into oil wells will increase volume which will increase profit (News Scientist). With new technologies on the rise we are making fossil fuels cleaner for the environment and therefore more efficient. There is no reason to switch to solar power or even wind power because it would ruin our focus on clean coal and using fossil fuels. Since coal makes up more than 50 % of the United States power we need to focus on making it cleaner. We should concentrate our focus and money towards cleaning coal and reducing toxic fumes instead of researching solar power. Centralization Imagine if there was only one way to produce electricity and power. Those companies would just increase the price of electricity and will make a fortune doing so. Right now there are several different methods of generating electricity and power which gives competition. Competition in this case is a must because it fuels the drive for new technology which is needed in the years to come. Imagine if there was only one oil company and they had total control on the oil industry. Who says they cannot just raise the price of gasoline to whatever they think is equitable. The United States runs on oil and if the oil industry has a monopoly people in the United States will have a rude awakening. By having competition a monopoly won’t occur and we will have an abundant source of power for years to come. Most power generated in the United States today is connected to a centralized grid. Power can easily be generated and added, or taken off an consumed. Adding equipment that uses renewable energy (wind turbines, solar panels, other alternative energy equipment) to the grid would be nearly impossible. For example, in his dissertation, Ibrahim Al-­‐Bahadly examines using wind turbines in rural areas. This does make sense in remote areas where there is not a great concern for the aesthetic disruptions of one windmill, or where bird deaths may be minimal. These wind turbines likely wouldn’t even have to be added to the grid. But this is not a feasible solution in cities and more populated areas. To get power to these areas from renewables, some wind turbines operate offshore, and solar panels make more sense when located in the desert where there is near-­‐constant sun. Getting energy to a centralized grid from these extreme locations is no simple task. And because power plants don’t necessarily depend on weather for operation, they make much more sense to use with a big grid format. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would ultimately mean eliminating and/or replacing the big grid with smaller, more versatile layouts that would be tremendously expensive. Also, if we switched to solar or wind there are several factors to consider that aren’t associated with fossil fuels. Solar panels would only be successful if they are positioned at the correct angle and there is enough sunlight. Wind power will only help if they are located in a windy place. Power plants can be positioned anywhere and still be just as effective. One reason we use fossil fuels today is because they are diverse and can be positioned almost anywhere. Look at a hydro power plant, they are effective when they are implemented correctly but you can’t put one in the middle of a desert. Additionally, the idea of adopting a non-­‐grid energy system can be analogized to ceasing the use of internal combustion engines in cars. There may be more efficient alternatives to the traditional piston-­‐cylinder engine, but to implement the more efficient engine in every new car made, to train every mechanic to be able to work on the new engine, to redesign tools to be able to use with the new engine, and to conduct what is essentially a massive overhaul of the entire automobile industry is not worth the slight decrease in emissions. Similarly, to implement all of these relatively new renewable technologies requires many changes that may not be worth the positive environmental impact. Conclusion The current system we have is well-­‐established, tried and tested, and does not depend on a lot of factors. Solar power demands sunlight, wind power demands wind, and hydro power demands water. Fossil fuel only demands a factory to produce it. Why should the United States change what it has been doing for the past century? Currently solar, wind, and/or hydro cannot meet the demand the world has. Today, solar, wind, and even hydroelectric energy has a high startup cost and are still being researched in order to make it more cost effective. What do you do when there is no sunlight for 7 days straight? What if the wind decides to stop blowing? All the new methods of obtaining energy and creating power have a lot more factors involved. Fossil fuel currently emits toxic fumes into the air but currently clean coal is being researched and used instead. The bottom line is the system we use now works and will work in the years to come. Maybe it’s not the best for the environment but it’s not hurting it that much and we produce the most energy from fossil fuels. We need to have something to rely on and know it will always be there. With new technologies coming out we are inventing ways to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions. Continuing the methods of energy production we use today is the only option that has been proven to work on a large scale, makes sense in an already unstable economy, and can meet world demand. References: Al-­‐Bahadly, Ibrahim . Building a wind turbine for rural home. . Massey University, 2009. Web. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082609000489>. -­‐This source is credible because it was found through science direct. It is pro-­‐renewable energy but helps us make a point about the difficulties of wind energy. Biello, David. "Green Energy’s Big Challenge: The Daunting Task of Scaling Up." Environment 360. Yale, 20 Jan 2011. Web. 1 Mar 2012. -­‐This source is credible because it is from an accredited university and was recommended by Dr. Hull. It puts into perspective just exactly how much slack renewable energy would have to pick up if we stopped using fossil fuels. Bryce, Robert. "The Real Problem With Renewables." Forbes. Forbes.com LLC, 11 May 2010. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-­‐energy-­‐oil-­‐
economy-­‐opinions-­‐contributors-­‐robert-­‐bryce.html>. Forbes is a credible source, and a google search determined Robert Bryce to be a very well-­‐known journalist. This article was used for pointing out the inadequacies of renewable energy power density. Page, Lewis. "IPCC report: Renewables can never meet energy demand." The Register. TheRegister.co.uk, 10 May 2011. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/10/ipcc_srren_pre_release/>. -­‐This source is credible because it is an article based on the findings of a study by the IPCC, an international organization. It helps our side of the debate because it focuses on how unlikely it is that renewables can meet energy demands by 2050. Pearce, Fred. "Squeaky Clean Fossil Fuels." NewScientist. Reed Business Information Ltd, 02 May 2005. Web. 26 Feb 2012. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7329-­‐
squeaky-­‐clean-­‐fossil-­‐fuels.html>. -­‐Newscientist is a well-­‐known science news hub. The article discusses clean coal methods. "Automotive Industry.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Feb 2012. Web. 04 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry>. -­‐Wikipedia is generally considered a credible source. This page was used to cite statistics about increased future oil demand due to increased car production. The information was cross-­‐checked. "The Benefits and Disadvantages of Renewable Energy Resources." Green Electricity Guide. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://www.greenelectricityguide.com/the-­‐benefits-­‐and-­‐
disadvantages-­‐of-­‐renewable-­‐energy-­‐resources>. -­‐This site is somewhat biased towards green energy and renewables (as most people nowadays are), but we see no reason for it to lack credibility. There are several informative articles containing information consistent with our other sources. "Coal Explained." EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 09 Jan 2012. Web. 26 Feb 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_home>. -­‐The Energy Information Administration belongs to the United States government, we do not question its credibility. This article contains general information about different types of coal and an overview of the process to create it. Relevant so we know more about the source of energy we are defending. "ExxonMobil." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 June 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil>. -­‐Wikipedia is generally considered credible. We needed employee statistics for this company to show how many peoples’ lives depend on jobs created by fossil fuels. (Note: we are aware only one of our four Wikipedia references counts towards the fifteen.) "'Fossil Fuel' Theory Takes Hit With Nasa Finding." WND. WND.com Inc., 01 Dec 2005. Web. 3 Mar 2012. <http://www.wnd.com/2005/12/33678/>. -­‐It’s a credible source because it is pretty non-­‐opinionated and directly reports the findings of NASA, which is obviously a credible course. It was used in case the group has to defend natural gas, because technically it is not a fossil fuel yet still generates a huge proportion of energy. "Gas Prices Are Too Damn High –Speculators to Blame?."Winning Progressive. Wordpress, 29 Apr 2011. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.winningprogressive.org/gas-­‐
prices-­‐are-­‐too-­‐damn-­‐high-­‐–speculators-­‐to-­‐blame>. -­‐While this site is a blog, it seems to be a collection of accurate information. It was used for general knowledge and to compare oil consumption and car production between the U.S. and China. "How much coal is left?." Greenbang. Greenbang.com Limited, 7 Feb 2012. Web. 4 Mar 2012. < http://www.greenbang.com/how-­‐much-­‐coal-­‐is-­‐left_21367.html />. -­‐Greenbang is a collection of thousands of articles with a 150,000 reader base. It was used for coal statistics. The article has a slight bias away from the continued use of coal, but offers a few statistics helpful to our debate. "How much oil is there left, really?." Make Wealth History. Wordpress, Jun 2010. Web. 3 Mar 2012. <http://makewealthhistory.org/2010/06/11/how-­‐much-­‐oil-­‐is-­‐there-­‐left-­‐
really/>. -­‐A blog that is an apparent collection of other information. Embedded in the post are several links to other sources, so this seems credible. The post is extremely skeptical of the longevity of oil reserves, so this was used for general information and to attempt to predict what pro-­‐renewable advocates would say. "Hybrid car sales: Lots of options, few takers." CNN Money. Cable News Network, 30 Sep 2011. Web. 3 Mar 2012. <http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/30/autos/hybrid_car_sales/index.htm>. -­‐CNN is a credible source. Article was used for the brief statistic regarding hybrid cars. "International Energy Annual 2006." Energy Information Administration. U.S. EIA, Jun 2008. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/iea/overview.html>. -­‐The EIA is a credible source as mentioned above. This article was used for a multitude of statistics regarding where the world gets its energy. Unbiased, strictly factual, an extremely helpful source. "List of Companies by Revenue." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 May 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue>. -­‐Wikipedia is generally a credible source. This was used to show how large of a role big energy companies play in the world economy. "Renewable Energy Commercialization." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 June 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization>. -­‐Wikipedia is generally a credible source. This page was used to cite the monetary costs of renewable energies. "World Crude Oil Production By Year." Index Mundi. U.S. EIA, 2011. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production>. -­‐Index Mundi is a compilation of country profiles with information gathered from multiple sources and grouped into easy-­‐to-­‐read graphics. The founder is an MIT graduate, and some of the information was cross-­‐checked, so we have determined the resource to be credible. This is where we got our world oil production statistics and it helps our argument against the idea that peak oil is behind us. "World oil supply still plentiful, study shows." MSN. MSNBC.com, 14 Nov 2006. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/ns/business-­‐
oil_and_energy/t/world-­‐oil-­‐supply-­‐still-­‐plentiful-­‐study-­‐shows/>. -­‐Reuters is one of the most reliable news agencies in the world. The information in the article came from Cambridge researchers and helps our argument because it provides us a prediction of how much oil is left that is nearly 3x as long as other more skeptical sources.