| The Energy Challenge 2004 - Scenarios | ||||
|
||||
We can ask ourselves, "Can the first 30 years of the new century be anything like the last 30 of the old?" There are three ways to look at this question: 3 x the '90s decade, 3/2 the 1970-1990 period, or simply a repeat of the 30 years.
The "do nothing" future
Factoring out excess inflation in the ‘70s, our historic progress looked like:
With declining oil availability by 2010, and declining natural gas already
happening, we can project three energy scenarios for 2030 with the following key
assumptions:
Coal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear display absolute growth as in these past
periods.
NG drops by almost 50% and then stabilizes until after the period considered.
Oil rises to 42 quads by 2007 and then declines only 3%/yr.
The following table illustrates what our energy balance would be like under these “do nothing” assumptions.
In any scenario with strong economic growth, no acceleration in efficiency, and no significant development of renewables, we do not get there from here, even with coal and nuclear doubling. Clearly, with NG and petroleum in decline, the future growth of other energy sources must be very different from the recent past, or we will have economic growth constrained by an energetic shortfall of at least 35 quads by 2030. Imagine the resulting economic chaos. Imagine what 2060 (or maybe 2040) would look like with zero oil and natural gas.
An ideal future scenario
However, recall from “The Energy Challenge 2004 – Coal” that one quad of
primary electricity has about the same productivity in the economy as three
quads of oil or natural gas or nuclear, and as six quads of coal. Let us also
assume that we mount a reasonably successful energy efficiency and conservation
program, reaching a 50% energy intensity improvement by 2060, instead of our
goal of 2035. Let us also assume that we replace fossil and nuclear fuels with
renewably generated primary electricity. A possible future could look like:
If we replaced all of the fossil and nuclear with renewable primary electricity, we would need only 57% of year 2000 primary energy for an economy 3.3 times as large, and we would only have to develop 44 quads of new renewables. With this scenario we have achieved a total factor 6 reduction in primary energy, factor 2 from efficiency and a little intelligent conservation, and factor 3 from the mix change from fossil/nuclear to renewables. That achievement would be an ideal situation and may not be quite possible (the replacement factors are not precise estimates), but something very close could be achieved in a world where environmental concerns fully trumped corporate special interests. In the real world it will not be done because of intense resistance from affected parties, especially coal producers and nuclear and utility vested interests.
A realistic scenario
In a more realistic world, we could foresee economic growth from 2000 to 2030
like 1970-1990, i.e. 90% GDP growth, slowing to 80% and 70% in the successive
30-year periods. (Eventually we have to get over our growth fixation and go for
sustainability, but leave that to wiser future generations in the next century.)
Delaying the phase-out of coal, but ultimately achieving near factor 5 from a
combination of demand management and fossil fuel replacement, we might foresee
an achievable scenario like the following table. “In”, below, can be
considered primary energy or primary energy equivalent. “Out” is useful
energy in primary electricity equivalent. This scenario is based on the
following assumptions:
Output energy demand per unit of GDP is reduced by 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2060
Coal is used 30% more efficiently by 2030 and with doubled efficiency by 2060,
but coal availability peaks before 2050 and is in decline by 2060. NG drops by
only 35% by 2030, but is out of the picture by 2060.
Oil grows to 42 quads by 2007 and then declines an average of near 6%/yr to 2030
and is out of the energy picture before 2060.
Nuclear efficiency grows from 33% now to 36% in 2030, 43% in 2060 and 50% in
2090, as small PBRs are used also for central heating, and waste heat is used to
improve electrolysis efficiency.
Recovery of energy and nutrients from bio-waste grows with economic and
population growth.
Wind and solar take significant roles in the energy picture. Wind has more Ein
than Eout because extra capacity is assumed for hydrogen generation for
buffering.
Ocean energy (wave, tide and ocean thermal) is not expected to make a
significant contribution in the first half of the century.
This is a future that is readily achievable, that should not be too strongly resisted, that achieves a fully secure, domestic energy supply, and that can be near zero carbon if we rapidly clean up coal.
Comments on the “realistic scenario”
The scenario presented in 4) above is neither a forecast nor the output of a
sophisticated model. It is simply one illustration of what can be achieved. In
reality, after reaching peak economic availability, due to growing production
cost, coal is likely to be priced out of the picture well before 2090. The role
of nuclear might also be restrained.
It is interesting that total Ein intensity declines by almost factor 5, factor 2 due to efficiency and waste reduction, and factor 2+ due to replacement of inefficient fossil fuel. With a little more efficiency, a little less nuclear, and coal going to zero, >factor 6 could be realized. There are three imperatives to achieve such a future:
One hopes that the electric utility industry is doing scenario planning, and coming up both with scenarios reasonably like the above, and the plans to implement them.
A More desirable scenario
A more desirable scenario would limit the growth of both coal and nuclear in
favor of renewables, and might look like the following. Apart from resistance
from the coal and nuclear industries there is no reason why such a scenario
should not be equally achievable. Note, this scenario consumes about 90 BsT of
coal (30 – 50% of recoverable) by 2060, certainly exhausting the share that is
relatively inexpensive to mine. If ocean energy didn’t show such growth,
nuclear might have to make up the balance.
Conclusions
Our perilous NG and petroleum future has not yet been fully recognized by our
legislators, and while the President and VP are clearly aware of peak petroleum
their response, so far, is less than appropriate.
The NEPDG National Energy Policy proposal is not close to consistent with the needs of the above “realistic” or “desirable” scenarios, focusing as it does on “drain America first” fossil fuel supply side more than renewables, and neglecting the demand side.
Without a more intelligent NEP, we are almost certainly facing severe energy shortfalls and economic crisis, probably in less than 10 years.
With an appropriate NEP, vigorously implemented, crises could be largely mitigated, or with luck, avoided.
What is needed now is a wise and aggressive national energy policy that puts us firmly on the path to 2030, as illustrated in 4) above. The emphasis has to be on the demand side and renewables, not the supply side and ANWR.
To subscribe or visit this site go to: http://www.energypulse.net