• 2015년 3월
  • Techtrend

    Home / Archive by category "Techtrend" (Page 37)

    Article

    Audi: Going 90% dual-clutch transmission in future?

    Audi: Going 90% dual-clutch transmission in future?

    Interesting outlook here provided by Wolfgang Hatz, head of Powertrain Development for the Volkswagen Group, that Audi could use 90% dual-clutch transmission in future.

    Citing reasons of fuel efficiency and performance, head of Powertrain Development for the Volkswagen Group Wolfgang Hatz estimates that the vast majority of future production will feature dual-clutch transmissions.

    “In the future, I expect that 90% of our transmissions will be double-clutch,” Hatz told Motor Trend Online. He went on to say the technology will expand beyond small-displacement, lower-powered models, suggesting the latest dual-clutch offering on the Audi Q5 and S4 would be adequate for the majority of Audi’s lineup with its ability to handle power in the neighborhood of 440 lb-ft of torque. Hatz added the technology would be available in the future on the “supersport” segment — and possibly a future R8 — though no specific timeframe was mentioned.

    BMW makes the awesome look SIMPLE with leaning three-wheeler

    BMW makes the awesome look SIMPLE with leaning three-wheeler

    12oct09_bmwsimple.jpg

    BMW’s latest concept isn’t quite as far out as some of its earlier efforts, and the company has dubbed it SIMPLE, but don’t let that fool you. Joining Nissan’s Land Glider in a new trend toward leaning vehicles that have motorbike-like footprints, the “Sustainable and Innovative Mobility Product for Low Energy consumption” is said to have similar seating space to a BMW 3 Series coupe. Its space fighter appearance isn’t just for show either — with a drag coefficient of 0.18 and a weight of only 992 pounds, this bad boy is capable of harnessing a small internal combustion engine and electric motor to tear up the autobahn at up to 124mph. Zero to sixty in under ten seconds and 118 miles per gallon fuel efficiency fill out the sexy stat sheet, though sadly there are no productions plans as of yet. The concept is being exhibited in the BMW Museum in Munich, but if you can’t make it over to Germany right now, there’s a video for you after the break.

    Renewable Fuel Pretenders

    Renewable Fuel Pretenders

    Posted by Robert Rapier on September 3, 2009 – 10:16am

    Introduction

    This essay initially started out as “Pretenders, Contenders, and Niches.” However, the section on pretenders grew to the point that I have decided to split that essay up. The first part, Renewable Fuel Pretenders, will cover some of the current media and political darlings. The second part, Renewable Fuel Contenders, will discuss some options that have received less attention, but in the long term are more likely to have staying power in my view. The final part on niches will discuss situations in which certain options might work in very specific situations.

    One thing that probably goes without saying. Most pretenders don’t believe they are pretenders. They are often completely sincere people who believe they have cracked the code, and thus they take exception to my characterization. The cellulosic guys, the algae guys, and even the hydrogen guys will insist that I have it all wrong. In fact, following the posting of this essay on my blog, I heard from all of them. I got numerous e-mails assuring me that they really had come up with the solution. What I have discovered in many of these cases is that people often believe this because they have no experience at scaling up technologies. They might have something that works in the lab, but this can instill a false sense of confidence in those who have never scaled a process up.

    Reality Begins to Sink In

    There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal this past week:

    U.S. Biofuel Boom Running on Empty

    A few pertinent excerpts:

    –  The biofuels revolution that promised to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil is fizzling out.

    –  Two-thirds of U.S. biodiesel production capacity now sits unused, reports the National Biodiesel Board.

    –  Producers of next-generation biofuels — those using nonfood renewable materials such as grasses, cornstalks and sugarcane stalks — are finding it tough to attract investment and ramp up production to an industrial scale.

    This all boils down to something I have said on many occasions: You can’t mandate technology. Just because you mandate that 36 billion gallons of biofuel are to be produced by 2022 doesn’t mean that it has a remote chance of happening. This is not a hard concept to understand, but it seems to have eluded our government for many years. Politicians would probably understand that they couldn’t create colonies on the moon in 10 years via mandate. They know they can’t cure cancer via mandate. But in the area of biofuels, they seem to feel like they can just conjure up vast amounts of hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol, or algal biodiesel.

    –  Domestically produced biofuels were supposed to be an answer to reducing America’s reliance on foreign oil. In 2007, Congress set targets for the U.S. to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year into the U.S. fuel supply in 2022, from 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.

    –  Cellulosic ethanol, derived from the inedible portions of plants, and other advanced fuels were expected to surpass corn ethanol to fill close to half of all biofuel mandates in that time.

    –  But the industry is already falling behind the targets. The mandate to blend next-generation fuels, which kicks in next year, is unlikely to be met because of a lack of enough viable production.

    Most people don’t realize that the Germans were the first to produce ethanol from cellulose. That happened in 1898. For our political leaders and many industry boosters, cellulosic ethanol is a recent discovery, and thus they expect big leaps in the technology in the next few years. These expectations completely ignore the fact that researchers have been hard at work on making cellulosic ethanol a reality for decades – with little success. The situation is like needing to make a journey of 100 miles, and companies send out press releases every time they move an inch. This gives the false impression that the technology (same story with algae) is expanding by leaps and bounds.

    In President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address, he broadly expanded the mandate for ethanol. He voiced his strong support for cellulosic ethanol, and included billions of gallons in the Renewable Fuel Standard – as well as billions of dollars of financial support.

    How quickly our politicians seem to have forgotten the 2003 State of the Union, in which Bush set forth his vision of the hydrogen economy:

    “A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free.”

    We spent some two billion dollars toward that goal. Once again, this ignored many technical and economic realities, and so in May 2009:

    The dream of hydrogen fuel cell cars has just been put back in the garage. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced yesterday that his department is cutting all funding for hydrogen car research, saying that it won’t be a feasible technology anytime soon. “We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no,’” Chu said.

    My prediction is that in the not too distant future we will start to see headlines like this for cellulosic ethanol. The troublesome barriers to commercialization are quite fundamental, and aren’t likely to be resolved by government mandate. If enough money is thrown at it, cellulosic ethanol will certainly be produced. After all, the Germans could do it 110 years ago. But it can never be a scalable, economic reality.

    Pretenders

    Broadly speaking, in the world of next generation renewable fuels there are contenders, pretenders, and niches. Over the past decade, we have thrown an awful lot of money at pretenders and have little to show for it. There are many reasons for this, but fundamentally I believe it boils down to the fact that our political leaders can’t sort the wheat from the chaff. If a proponent extols the benefits of hydrogen, cellulose, or algae – the politicians just don’t know enough to ask the right critical questions. They listen – generally to the very people who will benefit from more funding – and then they allocate money. Billions of dollars and little progress later, they or their successors may begin to realize that they have been misled and they start to dial the funding back.

    Here is how I define a next generation Biofuel Pretender: A company or group that makes grandiose promises about the ability of a technology to displace large amounts of fossil fuel, despite facing significant (and often unrecognized) barriers to commercialization.

    Here are some examples:

    Hydrogen

    One of the original renewable energy pretenders. Proponents ignored practical realities in many different areas, including fuel cell vehicles that cost a million dollars, the fact that most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, the fact that the energy density of hydrogen is very low, and the fact that there are multiple issues with hydrogen storage and transport. Technical breakthroughs were being counted on to solve these challenges. After all, we put a man on the moon. Surely we could solve these challenges.

    The real problem is that the potential for success falls rapidly as the number of needed breakthroughs pile up. Imagine for instance that each of the following – cost of vehicle production, cost effective storage, and cost effective transport of hydrogen – individually have a 25% chance of achieving commercial viability in the next 20 years. The total chance for success of all three in that case falls to 1.5%. Thus, most technologies that truly require multiple technical breakthroughs will fail to materialize commercially except perhaps over a much longer period of time.

    Cellulosic Ethanol

    As was the case with hydrogen, this one requires multiple technical breakthroughs before commercial (unsubsidized) viability can be achieved. I won’t go through them all now, as I have covered them before. The fundamental reason that cellulosic ethanol won’t scale up to displace large amounts of gasoline is that the energy efficiency of the process is so low. You have the sugars that make up cellulose locked up tightly in the biomass – which has a low energy density to start with. So you add energy to unlock the sugar and turn it into ethanol, and then you end up with ethanol in water. More energy inputs are required to get the ethanol out. Even if the energy can be supplied by the by-products of the process like lignin, the net BTUs of liquid fuel that you end up with are going to be low relative to what you started with.

    For example, assume you start off with 10 BTUs of biomass. You expend energy to get it to the factory, to process it, and then to get the water out. You burn part of the biomass to fuel the process, and input some fossil fuel. You might net something like 3 BTUs of liquid fuel from the 10 BTUs of biomass you started with. Don’t confuse this with fossil fuel energy balance, though. If the external energy inputs in this example only amounted to 1 BTU of fossil fuel, one could claim a fossil fuel energy balance of 3/1. But that doesn’t change the fact the final liquid fuel input is a small fraction of the starting BTUs in the biomass.

    This is analogous to the situation with oil shale, which is why I have compared the two. There may in fact be a trillion or more barrels of shale oil locked up in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. But if the extraction of those barrels requires a trillion barrels worth of energy inputs and lots of water – then that oil shale might as well be on the moon. So, a trillion barrels isn’t really a trillion barrels in the case of oil shale, and a billion tons of biomass is much smaller than it seems when talking about cellulosic ethanol.

    So despite the claims from the EPA that the Renewable Fuel Standard program will increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022 – that is not going to happen unless the government is willing to throw massive amounts of money at an inefficient process.

    Algal Biofuel

    Like many, I was initially enchanted by the possibility of weaning the world away from fossil fuels by using fuel made from algae. Proponents wrote articles suggesting that we could do just that, provided the necessary investments are made.

    Sadly, the story is much more complex than that. The U.S. DOE funded a study for many years into the potential of algae to produce fuel. (For an overview of where things stand from John Benemann, one of the men who co-authored the close-out report of that study, see Algal Biodiesel: Fact or Fiction?) The problem is again one of needing to surmount multiple technical hurdles, and the close-out report discusses that reality. Again, I won’t go into those details, as that has been covered before.

    While it is a fact that you can produce fuel from algae, the challenges are such that John has written that you can’t even buy algal biofuel for $100/gallon. He said that if you want to separate the reality from the hype, just try to secure a contract with someone to supply you with algal fuel.

    Note: Following the initial publication of this essay, a person who has been active with algae research for many years wrote to me: “In spite of all the hype and non-stop press releases, no one to my knowledge is producing algae on a commercial basis for biofuel production.” Again, if someone claims they are, ask where you can buy some of their fuel.

    First Generation Biodiesel

    This story is primarily about 2nd generation fuels, and as such I won’t get into corn ethanol issues. But I will say a bit about biodiesel. As indicated in the Wall Street Journal story, conventional biodiesel producers are in trouble. Briefly, a conventional biodiesel producer is someone who takes vegetable oils or animal fats and generally uses methanol (almost all of which is fossil-fuel derived) and converts that into an oxygenated compound (called a mono-alkyl ester). This compound has been defined as ‘biodiesel’, and can be used – subject to certain limitations – in a diesel engine.

    Again, the problems are fundamental. It takes a lot of effort (energy, cost) to produce most of the oils that are used as raw materials, and then you have to react with methanol – which usually contains a lot of embodied fossil fuel energy. Presently, the first generation biodiesel producers benefit from a high level of protectionism (to the extent of punishing the more efficient 2nd generation producers). But even with the protectionism and the subsidies, producers are still struggling to survive. What really killed them is that they were exporting a large amount of the biodiesel production to Europe. This enabled them to collect double subsidies – U.S. and European – but the Europeans recently put a stop to that, thus putting the industry in financial crisis.

    Miscellaneous

    There are a number of miscellaneous pretenders that we probably don’t need to discuss in depth, such as various free energy schemes or water as a fuel. If you think you might be dealing with a pretender, one caution flag is when their promoters are from backgrounds that have nothing to do with energy. For instance, the person who founded the dot.com that ultimately morphs into an energy company is almost certainly a pretender chasing funds.

    Summary

    To summarize, the biofuel pretenders fall into several broad categories. The big ones are:

    • Hydrogen

    • Most would-be cellulosic ethanol producers

    • Most would-be algal biofuel producers

    • Most first generation biodiesel producers

    This isn’t to say that none of these will work in any circumstances. I will get into that when I talk about niches. But I will say that I am confident that none of these are scalable solutions to our fossil fuel dependence. Frankly, I wish the algae story was true. I love the idea of getting renewable fuel from brackish waterways. But I try not to let a hope get confused with what I believe is realistic.

    The problem is that political leaders have been, or are still convinced that there is great potential for some of these and we waste billions of dollars chasing fantasies. This is a great distraction, causing a loss of precious time and public goodwill as taxpayer money is squandered chasing schemes that ultimately will not pan out.

    In the next installment, I will talk about contenders – options that I think can compete with fossil fuels on a level playing field.

    The Cellulosic Ethanol Site

    History (from Wikipedia)

    The first attempt at commercializing a process for ethanol from wood was done in Germany in 1898. It involved the use of dilute acid to hydrolyze the cellulose to glucose, and was able to produce 7.6 liters of ethanol per 100 kg of wood waste (18 gal per ton). The Germans soon developed an industrial process optimized for yields of around 50 gallons per ton of biomass. This process soon found its way to the United States, culminating in two commercial plants operating in the southeast during World War I. These plants used what was called “the American Process” — a one-stage dilute sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Though the yields were half that of the original German process (25 gallons of ethanol per ton versus 50), the throughput of the American process was much higher. A drop in lumber production forced the plants to close shortly after the end of World War I. In the meantime, a small, but steady amount of research on dilute acid hydrolysis continued at the USDA’s Forest Products Laboratory.

    In 1932, the Germans developed an improved “percolation” process using dilute sulfuric acid, known as the “Scholler Process.” These reactors were simple systems in which a dilute solution of sulfuric acid was pumped through a bed of wood chips. Several years into World War II, the United States found itself facing shortages of ethanol and sugar crops. The U.S. War Production Board reinvigorated research on wood-to-ethanol as an “insurance” measure against future worsening shortages, and even funded construction of a plant in Springfield, OR. The board directed the Forest Products lab to look at improvements in the Scholler Process. Their work resulted in the Madison Wood Sugar process, which showed substantial improvements in productivity and yield over its German predecessor3. Problems with start up of the Oregon plant prompted additional process development work on the Madison process at TVA’s Wilson Dam facility. TVA’s pilot plant studies further refined the process by increasing yield and simplifying mechanical aspects of the process4. The dilute acid hydrolysis percolation reactor, culminating in the design developed in 1952, is still one of the simplest means of producing sugars from biomass. It is a benchmark against which we often compare our new ideas. In fact, such systems are still operating in Russia.

    In the late 1970s, a renewed interest in this technology took hold in the United States because of the petroleum shortages experienced in that decade. Modeling and experimental studies on dilute hydrolysis systems were carried out during the first half of the 1980s. DOE and USDA sponsored much of this work. By 1985, most researchers recognized that, while the dilute acid percolation designs were well understood, these systems had reached the limits of their potential. Their comparatively high glucose yields (around 70%) were achieved at the expense of producing highly dilute sugar streams. Kinetic models, based on pseudo first order kinetics, and process design work showed that the most effective designs would require both high solids concentration and some form of countercurrent flow. The former is a consequence of equipment size and energy cost and the latter is a consequence of the reactor kinetics. Both requirements involve significant equipment design problems. Studies shifted to alternative designs, such as plug flow reactors5,6 and so-called progressing batch systems that mimicked countercurrent operation7. Optimal operation of the plug flow reactors required very short residence time (6 to 10 seconds) and high temperature (around 240 C)8. On scale up, these systems encountered some difficulties with solids handling, even at lower-than-optimal concentrations9. Plug flow systems in the lab and the pilot plant produced yields of glucose of around 50%. These yields are approaching the theoretical limits for such continuous reactor systems.

    In April 2004, Iogen Corporation, a Canadian biotechnology firm, became the first business to commercially sell cellulosic ethanol, though in very small quantities. The primary consumer thus far has been the Canadian government, which, along with the United States government (particularly the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory), has invested millions of dollars into assisting the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol.

    Another company which appears to be nearing commercialization of cellulosic ethanol is Spain’s Abengoa Bioenergy [2]. Abengoa has and continues to invest heavily in the necessary technology for bringing cellulosic ethanol to market. Using process and pre-treatment technology from SunOpta Inc.(NASDAQ: STKL), Abengoa is building a 5 million gallon cellulosic ethanol facility in Spain and has recently entered into a strategic research and development agreement with Dyadic International, Inc. (AMEX: DIL), to create a new and better enzyme mixtures which may be used to improve both the efficiencies and cost structure of producing cellulosic ethanol.

    On December 21, 2006, SunOpta Inc. announced a Joint Venture with GreenField Ethanol, Canada’s largest ethanol producer. The joint venture will build a series of large-scale plants that will make ethanol from wood chips, with SunOpta Inc. and GreenField each taking 50% ownership. The first of these plants will be 10 million gallons per year, which appears to be the first true “commercial scale” cellulosic ethanol plant in the world. Under 1 million gallons per year (MMgy) is considered “Pilot Scale”, greater than 1 MMgy but less than 10 MMgy is defined as “commercial demonstration”, while a plant that produces 10 MMgy per year or greater is true “commercial scale”. Despite the multiple commercial demonstration cellulosic ethanol plants SunOpta has been involved with, media reports continue to state that cellulosic ethanol is an unproven, “experimental” technology. The 10 MMgy SunOpta/GreenField cellulosic ethanol plant is intended to demonstrate that large-scale cellulosic ethanol is commercially viable immediately.

    President Bush, in his State of the Union address delivered January 31, 2006, proposed to expand the use of cellulosic ethanol. In his State of the Union Address on January 23, 2007, President Bush announced a proposed mandate for 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017. It is widely recognized that the maximum production of ethanol from corn starch is 15 billion gallons per year, implying a mandated production of some 20 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol by 2017. Bush’s plan includes $2 billion funding for cellulosic ethanol plants, with an additional $1.6 billion announced by the USDA on January 27, 2007.

    In March 2007, the US government awarded $385 million in grants aimed at jumpstarting ethanol production from nontraditional sources like wood chips, switchgrass and citrus peels. Half of the six projects chosen will use thermochemical methods and half will use cellulosic ethanol methods.

    The American company Range Fuels announced in July 2007 that it was awarded a construction permit from the state of Georgia to build the first commercial-scale 100-million-gallon-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant in the United States. Construction began in November, 2007.

    Peak Oil for Dummies

    Peak Oil for Dummies

    Dick Cheney, 46th US Vice-President (speaking as the CEO of Halliburton (HAL) in 1999):

    Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature… Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. It is the basic, fundamental building block of the world’s economy. It is unlike any other commodity. [1]

    Al Gore, 45th US Vice-President, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (June, 2004)

    We almost certainly are at or near Peak Oil. [2]

    Introduction

    Over the past decade, a fierce debate has emerged amongst energy experts about whether global oil production was about to reach a peak, followed by an irreversible decline.

    This event, commonly known as “Peak Oil” far outreaches the sole discipline of geology. From transportation to modern agriculture, petrochemicals and even the pharmaceutical industry all of them rely on one commodity: cheap and abundant oil. In order to sustain the needs of an ever globalized world, oil demand should double by 2050 [3].

    Nonetheless, geological limitations will disrupt this improbable scenario. In fact, a growing proportion of energy experts argue that Peak Oil is impending and warn about the extraordinary scale of the crisis.
    42 Years of Oil Left?

    According to the 2009 BP Statistical Review, the world has precisely 42 years of oil left [4]. Those numbers come from a very simple formula, the R/P ratio, which consists of dividing the official number of global oil reserves by the level of today’s production.

    Nevertheless, this methodology is dangerously defective on several key points as it ignores geological realities. Oil production does not consist of a plan level of production that brutally ends one day; it follows a bell-shaped curve.

    Indeed, the important day occurs when production starts to decline, not when it ends. As it is a non-flexible commodity, even a small deficit in oil production can lead to a major price surge.

    Finally, the R/P ratio does not acknowledge that production costs increase over the time; the first oil fields to be developed were logically the easy ones and so the most profitable. It is well recognized that remaining oil fields consist of whether poor quality oil or remotely located fields which need high technologies and expensive investments.

    Therefore, relying on the R/P ratio gives a false impression of security while the actual situation is critical.
    Global Oil Reserves: Lies and Manipulations

    Oil is a strategic resource; therefore having oil is a key political and economical advantage for a state. This is why politics interfere in the evaluation of oil reserves, especially in countries with poor accountability records; that is, the majority of OPEC countries. In fact, OPEC oil reserves have dramatically increased during the 1980s and 1990s.

    However, they have not discovered major oil fields after the 1970s. At this conjuncture, the question of what lays behind these fluctuations needs to be asked.

    The geologist Dr. Colin Campbell, founder of ASPO [5], explains the hidden reasons that led to these changes:

    In 1985, Kuwait, added 50% to its reserve. At that time, the OPEC quota was based on the reported reserves; the more you reported, the more you could produce. [6]

    Fellow OPEC members who were unwilling to see the influence of Kuwait growing, simply raised their reserves soon after. Moreover, OPEC countries continue to present their reserves as flat despite having extracted huge amounts of oil during the past twenty years.

    At this point, we should not forget that oil reserves reported by these countries are not audited by independent experts. In 2006, the notorious Petroleum Intelligence Weekly said it had access to confidential Kuwaiti reports which stated that reserves were half the official numbers [7].

    In reaction, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister stated,

    The Kuwait people are not concerned with numbers. This is related to national security. [8]

    In 2006, Dr. Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior energy expert from the National Iranian Oil Company, declared that oil reserves in the Middle-East were “about half, or even less than what the respective national governments claim” and added “as for Iran, the usually accepted official 132 billion barrels is almost 100 billion barrels over any realistic assay” [9].

    In fact, importing countries are simply asked to trust OPEC nations. Strangely, but surely, this is done by importing countries who assume these numbers are true and use them in their projections. On a report to the US Congress on Peak Oil, the US Government Accountability Office justly noted these problematic estimations [10].

    The question of oil reserves is most relevant. As oil exporting countries have less oil in their ground, Peak Oil will arrive faster. Oil optimists who argue Peak Oil is still decades away rely on these same erroneous data.

    In addition, if importing countries assume oil reserves are abundant as they do, the crisis will be unexpected, unprepared and misunderstood; in one word: overwhelming. Similarly, once oil shortages occur, oil importing countries may assume that exporting countries are deliberately reducing their oil exports to harm their national interests.

    Such a flawed assumption from oil importing countries is likely to have serious repercussions, and eventually lead to new oil wars.
    The Imminent Decline of Global Oil Production

    In 2008 the International Energy Agency (IEA) conducted for the first time [11] a detailed field-by-field analysis of global oil production and its findings are bleak. Asked by a journalist on what the previous analysis relied on, the Chief-Economist of the IEA admitted, “it was mainly an assumption” [12].

    In the 2008 World Energy Outlook (WEO), they have analysed about 800 fields, which account for ¾ of global reserves and more than 2/3 of global oil production [13].

    They come to the conclusion that decline rates are far higher than previously thought, between 6.7 and 8.6% a year [14].

    As result, they now estimate that to maintain the current levels of oil production by 2030 the world would need to develop and produce 45 MBD; as said by Dr. Birol, approximately four new Saudi-Arabias [15].

    Simultaneously, they have analysed all the projects that are financially sanctioned in all the countries in the world (about 230) up to 2015. As it takes five to ten years to produce oil from a new field, they have a clear image of the coming situation.

    When they add all the projects together (if all of them see the light of the day – unlikely with the current credit crunch [16]) they will bring about 25 millions barrels per day [17]. However, because of the important decline rates, the world will still be short of “at least” 12.5 MBD before 2015 [18].

    Asked by a journalist if this means Peak Oil, Dr. Birol answered, “We are facing a serious threat” [19].

    In 2009, Merrill Lynch conducted a similar analysis and concluded that, “the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s production every two years” [20].

    Yet, oil production is already in an irreversible decline in at least 54 of the 65 most important producing countries and we nowadays consume three barrels of oil for a single one discovered [21]; an unsustainable situation.

    The latest annual report on geopolitical prospective from the US Joint Forces Command reached the stunning conclusion that:

    By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD… The implications for future conflict are ominous…[22]

    At this pace, global oil production could decline by 50% from its current level, as soon as 2030 [23].
    A Contested Reality: By Whom and Why?

    For many years, Peak Oil was ignored by officials from oil companies and governmental agencies such as the IEA [24]. They negligently repeated that production was not at risk. However, over the recent years and in light of indisputable facts, we have seen a radical change in the discourse of the IEA [25] and leading oil companies such as Chevron (CVX) [26] and Total (TOT) [27].

    In a recent video interview, Chevron’s Vice-Chairman, Peter Robertson, clearly expressed his fears:

    You know, it’s often times people will ask, ‘Why in the world would Chevron be encouraging its customers to use less energy?’ After all, we sell energy – that’s our product… In many ways, a lot of us are concerned about the ability of the world’s supply system to provide the energy that people need…[28]

    To the desolation of many, the debate has not been closed. Indeed, a few voices continue to sponsor, actively and loudly, the vision that oil production does not face any danger. Amongst them, we find three notorious voices, namely the CERA oil consultant, the OPEC cartel and not surprisingly in regard to its notorious poor record of scientific objectivity, the oil company, Exxon Mobil (XOM).

    At this conjuncture, we can picture the hidden motives for Exxon Mobil to do so. By telling the public that oil production will no longer be plentiful, the consequences for the company are numerous. They include the danger of diversification from oil and creating a context of mistrust regarding oil companies; all of them bad for short-term business.

    Regarding the OPEC, we saw earlier how prone they were to manipulate their reserves and we should not expect much from official OPEC statements.

    The following comment from Dr. Chalabi, the former OPEC Secretary-General, gives additional information about how the cartel really works:

    OPEC countries do not care about what might happen 20 years from now. They care about what they get today. Because, these are politicians, they want more money, to spend rationally or not. [29]

    Furthermore, Dr. Sadad al-Huseini, former Head of Exploration and Production at the Saudi-Aramco, publicly contradicted his former bosses, by declaring that, “oil is likely to peak at a 95 MBD plateau by 2015” [30].

    Besides, Dr. Shokri Ghanem, former Head of the Research Division at OPEC’s Secretariat, head of the Libyan National Oil Company and a relation of OPEC’s current Secretary General, admitted in a 2006 report published by the OPEC Secretariat:

    All in all, most would appear to agree that peak oil output is not very far away for all of us. It could take place sometime within the next decade or so, which in fact means that there is not much time left for a world economy to be driven largely by oil. [31]

    The Cambridge Energy Research Associates is a well-known energy consultant group and a leading opponent to Peak Oi l [32]. Yet, CERA has been accused of providing a biased vision of the situation as it is “close to the oil industry” [33].

    The following declaration from Chris Holtom, former head of British military intelligence, currently a strategic consultant to the oil & gas industry, gives valuable information:

    There is a pack of deceit and economy with the truth here – some wilful, some born of ignorance, or fear of “group-think” related to stock price or employment. It needs careful and persuasive exposure of agendas, motives and possible consequences… Peak Oil is a potential Black Swan event, where the consequences are so great that after it we spend most of our time justifying why we didn’t anticipate it… It is a global issue and global bodies need the clout and courage to address them. [34]

    Any Viable Alternative Energy?

    There is no easy, present, solution to the crisis. Alternatives to oil are still far from being a feasible replacement; hydrogen for example would require 30 to 50 years to replace oil economies [35].

    Meanwhile, the automobile industry is now planning to develop electric cars in the near future. While the first electric cars are expected to come on line in 2010-12, in order to replace 50% of the car fleet, the world would need between 10 to 20 years [36].

    Besides, as manufacturing a single car requires at least 20 barrels of oil [37], once oil production starts to decline, in 2011-2013[38], it will increasingly become difficult to develop the electric car on a massive scale.

    In fact, the closer we get to Peak Oil, the more difficult a massive and costly emergency plan to develop alternative energies will become.

    To quote a report on Peak Oil, commissioned by the US Department of Energy,

    Previous energy transitions (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. [39]

    As mentioned to me by David Fridley, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a former colleague of the US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu:

    My own efforts have focused on the science of alternative energy. The deeper you go into this area, the less sanguine you become that there is any effective mitigation possible… The bottom line is that there is no thermodynamic match for petroleum. [40]

    The Industrial Civilisation at a Turning Point

    In the following declaration, Dr. Jeremy Leggett, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board and one of “the key players in putting climate change on the world agenda” according to Time Magazine [41], described in 2006 how the crisis could unfold:

    The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth — little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with the confidence about the future high among traders — will shrivel. There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed… The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox. [42]

    While world leaders are debating on how we should manage the current economic crisis, that none of them saw coming, in a 2006 interview, Dr. Colin Campbell effectively forecasted the 2008 oil spike, which was to be followed by a recession and a subsequent fall in oil prices; a scenario that unfolded exactly as he said:

    I think we are facing an oil price shock, 100 or 200 dollars a barrel, an economic recession that cuts demand, and I will not be at all surprised if a fall in demand would make the price collapse again. So we might be back to 20 or 30 dollars a barrel next year perhaps. And so you have a price shock, a recession, a recovery, hits again the falling capacity limit, another price shock. And so I think that in the next few years, we have a sequence of vicious circles and gradually the reality of the situation will filtered through. We are on for a very volatile few years with enormous economic consequences. [43]

    In fact, a former director at the IEA, who used to be the superior of Dr. Fatih Birol, told me during a discussion that,

    The current (economic) crisis was caused by the insufficiency of (oil) supply from 2007 onwards, an avatar of Peak Oil. [44]

    Similarly, a recent study on the 2008 oil shock [45], from the economist Dr. James Hamilton – Brookings Institution – concludes that:

    The evidence to me is persuasive that, had there been no oil shock, we would have described the U.S. economy in 2007:Q4-2008:Q3 as growing slowly, but not in a recession. [46]

    This extract from the Energy Watch Group study on oil production provides useful additional information:

    The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life… The now beginning transition period probably has its own rules which are valid only during this phase. Things might happen which we never experienced before and which we may never experience again once this transition period has ended. [47]

    We are entering a new world with completely different characteristics to the one we have been growing with, the one where boundaries were crossable. It will be an unattractive world of “less far, less fast, less often, and more expensive”[48]; a radical and unexpected evolution or what could better be described as a regression.

    The transitory period we are entering now will be, to be sure, chaotic and fierce.

    The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the-world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years and decades that must be taken seriously. (Deutsche Bank, December, 2004) [49]

    Footnotes

    [1] Dick Cheney, “Speech at the British Institute of Petroleum”, (Institute of Petroleum, Autumn 1999) (here).

    [2] Al Gore, “CNN Larry King Live”, (CNN, 13 June 2006) (here).

    [3] Marvin Odum as quoted in NPR, “Shell Sees Global Oil Demand Doubling By 2050”, (NPR, 27 February 2009) (here).

    [4] British Petroleum, “2009 Statistical Review: Oil Reserves Table” (here).

    [5] Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (here).

    [6] Colin Campbell, “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash”, (Lava Production, 2006) (here).

    [7] Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, “Oil Reserves Accounting: The Case of Kuwait”, (Energy Intelligence, 30 January 2006) (here).

    [8] Arab Times, “Kuwait oil reserves secret for national security; Shuwayib acting head of KPC”, (Arab Times, 13 May 2007), Web Edition No:12881 (here).

    [9] MoneyWeek, “Why we must take Peak Oil seriously”, (MoneyWeek, 13 September 2006) (here).

    [10] GAO, “Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes it Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production”, (US Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, February 2007) (here).

    [11] George Monbiot, “When will the oil run out?” (The Guardian, 15 December 2008) (here).

    [12] Ibid

    [13] Olivier Rech interviewed by the author, (Paris: IEA HQ, 18 December 2008).

    [14] John Kemp, “Oil industry running faster just to keep up?: John Kemp”, (Reuters, 19 November 2008) (here).

    [15] The Times, “World needs four new Saudi Arabias, warns IEA”, (Times Online, 12 November 2008) (here).

    [16] Spencer Swartz, “OPEC Nations Delay Drilling Projects”, (The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2009) (here).

    [17] Fatih Birol interviewed by Andrew Evans, “Fatih Birol of the IEA talks the talk about peak oil”, (Aceditor, January 2008) (here).

    [18] Ibid

    [19] Ibid

    [20] Tom Arnold, “Oil output could fall by 30m bpd by 2015 – Merrill”, (Arabian Business, 4 February 2009) (here).

    [21] Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, “Statements on Oil by the Energy Committee”, (KVA, 14 October 2005) (here).

    [22] USJFCOM, “Joint Operating Environment 2008”, (Joint Forces Command, November 2008), page 17 and 19 (here).

    [23] Energy Watch Group, “Crude Oil – The Supply Outlook”, (EWG, February 2008) (here).

    [24] George Monbiot, “When will the oil run out?” (The Guardian, 15 December 2008) (here).

    [25] Javier Blas and Carola Hoyos, “Oil price to bounce back with recovery, IEA warns”, (Financial Times, 6 November 2008).

    [26] David J. O’Reilly, “CEO, Chevron in their Real Issues Ad”, (Chevron Corporation, 12 July 2005) (here).

    [27] Carola Hoyos, “Falling oil poses threat to supplies”, (Financial Times, 22 October 2008) (here).

    [28] Peter Robertson, “How Chevron Makes the Most of the Energy We Have”, (Chevron, April 2009) (here).

    [29] Fadhil Chalabi, “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash”, (Lava Production, 2006) (here).

    [30] Sadad al Husseini interviewed by Steve Andrews, “Sadad al Husseini sees peak in 2015”, (ASPO USA , 14 September 2005) (here).

    [31] Shokri Ghanem interviewed in the “OPEC Bulletin”, (OPEC, 11-12 2006), p. 60 to 63 (here).

    [32] CERA Press Release, “Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy & Energy Debate”, (CERA, 14 November 2006) (here).

    [33] Energy Watch Group, “Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society”, (Press release, 22 October 2007) (here).

    [34] Email discussion with the author, 14 May 2009.

    [35] US National Academy of Engineering, “The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs”, (The National Academy Press, 2004).

    [36] R. Hirsch, R. Bezdek and R. Wendling, “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management”, (US Department of Energy, February 2005).

    [37] Belfast Telegraph, “Scientists warn that oil supplies will start to run in four years’ time” (here).

    [38] Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, “The Oil Crunch Press Release”, 29 October 2008 (here).

    [39] R. Hirsch, R. Bezdek and R. Wendling, “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management”, (US Department of Energy, February 2005), p. 64 (here).

    [40] Email discussion with the author, 11 July 2009

    [41] Jonathon Gatehouse, “When the oil runs out”, (Macleans, 9 February 2006) (here).

    [42] Ibid

    [43] Dr. Colin Campbell as interviewed by Jonathan Holmes, “Peak Oil?”, (ABC, 10 July 2006) (here).

    [44] Email discussion with the author (under the Chatham House Rule), 30 April 2009.

    [45] John Hamilton, “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08”, (Brookings Institution, 23 March 2009).

    [46] Ibid, p. 40.

    [47] Energy Watch Group, “Crude Oil the Supply Outlook“, (EWG, October 2007), p. 70 (here).

    [48] Yves Cochet, “Pétrole Apocalypse”, (Fayard, 1 Septembre 2005).

    [49] Deutsche Bank, “Energy Prospects after the Petroleum Age“, (DB: 2 December 2004), page. 10 (here).