Archive for the ‘Age of Oil’ Category

Keep Kicking that Ethanol Can

Friday, August 10th, 2012

By David L. Brown

Yesterday I posted an analysis of the current forecasts for a poor corn crop due to heat and drought, and also mentioned that the obvious step to take is to suspend all ethanol production to free up the approximately one-third of the U.S. corn crop mandated to go to distilleries and into our gas tanks. If the corn crop drops by a significant degree, as seems likely, that mandated amount of corn will take an even larger bite out of the supply, perhaps even surpassing one-half of the total.

It’s deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra said. Back in 2008 I posted this editorial cartoon that appeared on the cover of Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists. (I am a 50-year member of SPJ and am immediate past-president of the New Mexico chapter.)

That cartoon is even more appropriate today, because the USDA is refusing to put a stop to the travesty even though a world food crisis is inevitable, putting hundreds of millions at risk of famine. And today, writing in The Financial Times, José Graziano da Silva, the director-general of the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization, wrote (as reported by Reuters here):

“Much of the reduced crop will be claimed by biofuel production in line with U.S. federal mandates, leaving even less for food and feed markets,” he wrote in an op-ed just a day before the U.S. government issues a pivotal crop report that is expected to show U.S. corn output falling to the smallest in six years and stockpiles at near record lows.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channeled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in a high-profile yet indirect message to Washington.

Obviously, the line has been drawn in the sand by those in charge in Washington and it’s to favor the owners and operators of ethanol plants vs. hundreds of millions of endangered human beings. And not to mention the “inconvenient truth” of food shortages and higher prices right here at home. Already, as I mentioned yesterday, ranchers are liquidating their herds in the face of dried-up pastures and hay crops. How bad is it way out West? I saw a post a few days ago from a rancher in west Texas who said that he’s received just three inches of rain in the last two years.  His critters have long since gone to market and he’s facing a bleak future.

(more…)

California Stays the Course on Green Energy

Friday, November 12th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Another example of the way in which energy moguls work to block development of sustainable, clean energy was the recent introduction of Prop. 23 in California. This proposition, which came to a vote on November 2, quite simply was aimed at dismantling the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32,  the GWSA calls for the state’s producers of greenhouse gas to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Many initiatives are well under way to replace fossil fuels, create greater efficiency in existing technologies, and move the state toward a cleaner “green” future. Beginning to take effect in 2012, the act will require about a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by the target date ten years from now.

This seems a moderate goal, perhaps even less than might be hoped. But nonetheless, it had drawn fire from the usual suspects, who organized Prop. 23 to demand that AB32 be suspended until the state’s employment rate dropped below 5.5 percent for a full 12 months. Because this is an unlikely event (that level has been reached only three times in the past 40 years), the proposition in reality was a move to permanently gut the GWSA.

And who was behind this end run to set California up to continue down the dead end path toward oblivion as resource depletion continues to undermine the old economic infrastructure while forward-looking nations such as China and Germany stake their futures on rapid development of alternative energy? Why, the usual suspects, of course. Although the California Republican and Libertarian Parties signed on to support the proposition, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger strongly opposed the proposition and was joined by GOP candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman among others, proving that the party structure is increasingly at odds with its own candidates.

But politicians weren’s the real conspirators behind the proposition. The individuals and corporate entities that acted in support of the proposition wrapped themselves in a cloak of deception, claiming to be concerned with jobs. In fact, they called their effort the California Jobs Initiative. And yet, a look at the list of major donors to the movement tells a different story. Top contributor was a company called Valero Energy ($4.05 million), followed by (among others) Tesoro ($1.525 million), Flint Hills Resources, LP ($1 million; this is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, a major supporter of anti-global warming initiatives); Occidental Petroleum ($300K), National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. ($100K), Tower Energy Group ($200K); World Oil Corp. ($100K); Southern Counties Oil ($50K); Frontier Oil ($50K);  Murray Energy ($30K); and Berry Petrochemical ($30K).

Hmm, do we see a pattern here? Are these leading supporters of a move to block California from improving its greenhouse gas footprint acting out of concern for the jobs of Californians—or from their own self-interested desire to continue to profit from fossil fuels and the destruction of the environment? It’s rather clear that the answer is the latter, the profit one, the evil one, rather than the charitable desire to protect jobs. for ordinary Californians. In fact, suspending the act would have put paid to at least 50,000 new jobs relating to clean energy initiatives.

To put this in further perspective, let’s take a closer look at some of those supporters of the proposal to block the green act. No. 1 contributor Valero operates two oil refineries in California. No. 2 donor Tesoro is the 24th largest producer of air pollution in the United States. And Koch Industries, the third largest contributor, is one of the top 10 corporate polluters in the nation.

What more can we say, except to applaud the wisdom of California voters who soundly defeated Prop. 23 by a 22 percent margin, approximately 61 percent to 39 percent. The Golden State may face deep and serious problems but at least its people have the courage to stand up against polluters and those that Ayn Rand called “looters,” the corporate highway robbers who want to continue their nasty ways at all costs.

California, and the world at large, needs to vastly expand support of alternative energy programs. It’s not the time to listen to those who advise us to inserting our heads into the sand in ostrich-like denial.

In an editorial written prior to the election, Science magazine editor Bruce Alberts had this to say:

The public and private investment in energy innovation now totals only about 0.3% of U.S. energy expenditures. California’s Proposition 23 needs to be soundly defeated, sending a clear signal to Washington that the people of the United States are ready and willing to mobilize its considerable resources in the vital drive to a sustainable energy future.

To which I add, bravo! And thanks to California voters the message has been sent.

Is the Biodiesel Nightmare Over?

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Congress has allowed a $1 per gallon subsidy on biodiesel fuel to expire, causing the struggling “faux fuels” enterprise to stumble to a halt. According to The Brock Report, an agri-business consultancy, “that industry has all but closed up shop.” The Brock announcement also included this:

“Pretty much every plant is idle,” said Michael Frohlich, Director of Communications for the National Biodiesel Board (NBB).

Even with the federal tax incentives, the biodiesel industry was already in deep trouble. U.S. biodiesel production was down 31% last year compared to 2008 due to a lack of profitability.

Monte Shaw, Executive Director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association says only 73 million gallons of biodiesel were produced last year from that state’s production capacity of 320 million gallons. Nationwide, last year’s capacity utilization was even worse than in Iowa at only 15%.

Bio-diesel fuel is made from soybeans, an essential foodstuff. As we have discussed repeatedly here, to divert crops from the world food markets as hundreds of millions hover on the edge of famine is a travesty.

Like its evil twin, ethanol, biodiesel is an unnatural product that has no place in the world. Not only do these faux fuels take food from hungry humans, they encourage over-planting, resource depletion, and soil erosion. By causing commodity prices to be bid up, they increase food prices worldwide, a cascade effect that hits eveyone from middle class Americans to the poorest of the poor in the Third World.

I don’t know if the Senate failed to extend the subsidy on biodiesel through wisdom or mere carelessness, but whatever the reason, the result is one that we can heartily support.

$100 Million Funding for Algae Biofuels Plant

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By David L. Brown

A $50 million federal grant has been awarded to Sapphire Energy of San Diego, CA, for a revolutionary bio-fuels plant to be built in New Mexico. The announcement was made by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department issued the grant under the economic recovery program. At the same time Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the USDA would further back the program with loan guarantees up to $54.5 million.

The company is pioneering what it calls “green crude oil,” created from renewable algae. The “green crude” will be used to make biodiesel and jet fuel. The company has already demonstrated the concept with research facilities at Las Cruces, NM and Portales, NM. The process has been demonstrated with several airliner test flights powered by fuel made by the company, and experiments are underway to prove the ability of algae-oil to be used to make gasoline.

potential_mainThe project will demonstrate an integrated process in which algae will be grown in ponds, then processed to remove water and extract oils. In a second stage the oils will be processed to produce fuels. Algae, pictured at left, not only grows fast (think kudzu here), but naturally contains a high percentage of oils.

According to Sapphire CEO the project will create as many as 750 direct and indirect jobs in New Mexico during construction, and 30-40 full-time positions after the plant is opened. Construction is expected to begin next year.

Sapphire claims that the new energy model, which uses water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to grow the algae, will be carbon neutral and produce fuels identical to those made from fossil fuels. It does not require large inputs of water and energy, nor does it rely on agricultural crops as is the case with some other alternative fuel processes such as those used to produce ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans.

New Mexico Senator Tom Udall hailed the project, saying it “will decrease our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our carbon footprint, and create jobs for hardworking New Mexicans.”

Algae offers one of the best sources for bio-fuels, since it can be grown relatively cheaply in ponds or tanks in areas with lots of sunlight, even deserts as in southern New Mexico. Corn for ethanol, on the other hand, is a farm crop requiring many inputs of land, labor, chemicals and seeds. Using farm crops to replace oil is unsustainable, uneconomical, and just plain foolish.

This is not the only such program in the works. On July 15, 2009, I reported (here) a major investment by oil giant ExxonMobil in an algae energy joint venture with Synthetic Genomics, a company founded by geneticist Craig Venter. ExxonMobil was reported to be putting $600 million into the plan. BP and other companies are also jumping on the algae bandwagon, making this one of the hottest areas in alternative fuel development.

All is not roses in the risky business of alternative energy. On May 13, 2009 it was announced that GreenFuel Technologies was closing down, a victim of the credit crunch. I posted an extensive report on this company’s algae fuel program on October 20, 2006 (here). GreenFuel was a joint venture between Harvard and MIT, and invested millions before falling victim to the economic troubles.

Already Doomed, New Dinosaur Goes to Sea

Friday, November 13th, 2009

By David L. Brown

If there is any segment of the wounded economic world that stands out as primed for failure, it may be the cruise ship industry. There are dozens of floating pleasure palaces plying the oceans these days, many of them only partially occupied and with special “deals” offered by desperate operators that make it cheaper to stay on a cruise ship than to hole up at a Motel 6.

In the news today is the arrival in Florida of the latest cruise ship behemoth, the Oasis of the Seas, as pictured here:

1_21_111309_cruise1This monstrous boat has 16 decks and 2700 cabins, with capacity for 6300 passengers and 2100 crew members. It is 40 percent larger than the next largest cruise ship, and five times the length of the Titanic.

There are literally hundreds of these things, ranging in size from specialized small ships but including dozens of large ocean-going ships. The Oasis of the Seas will bring to 22 the number of ships operated by Royal Caribbean Cruises. Carnival cruise lines has 23, and Princess, made famous by “The Love Boat” TV show, operates 15.

The trouble is that there is no future for the cruising business, and for a number of reasons:

• Fewer people can afford to take cruises, and especially if they are expected to pay full-fare. Many are taking advantage of blow-out pricing, but cruise lines cannot continue to operate ships forever at a loss. The present economic crisis has taken more than ten trillion dollars out of the net worth of Americans, and potential travelers around the world face similar conditions.
• Operating costs have risen substantially, primarily as a result of uncertainties and price spikes in the oil markets. That puts the operators in a serious bind, caught between low bookings and higher fuel costs. My guess is that most ships are losing money at unsustainable rates and that during the next year we will see a great many ships going into dry dock or being sent to the ship-breaking yards in Asia.
• Continual outbreaks of mysterious illnesses on board ships have plagued the industry, confounding public health experts and causing  passengers to stay away in droves.
• Political instability in some areas is having an effect on cruise operators. For example, increasing numbers of Caribbean destinations are perceived as too dangerous for tourists. Dockage facilities at the remaining islands and coastal countries are too limited to take the huge numbers of ships that would like to make them ports of call.
• Pirates, bless their black little hearts, have also contributed to the uncertainty of cruise ship operations, particularly in the Indian Ocean but now spreading to other areas including reports of activity off the coast of South America.

Put it all together with many other factors plaguing the world economy, and it seems that cruise ship days are numbered. And dinosaurs such as the Oasis of the Seas, built at a cost of $1.5 billion, are doomed to extinction.

And finally, is it just me or is this latest seagoing dino just, well, ugly? It reminds me of a barge on steroids, with none of the graceful lines of a Queen Mary II or the late-great QE II, destined to become a permanent tourist attraction in Dubai — a place that is suffering the same kind of implosion now destroying the cruise lines … but that’s a story for another time.

The Power of Economic Incentives

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

By David L. Brown

How do  we go about reducing carbon emissions to prevent climate change from spiraling into a global catastrophe? One obvious answer is to slow down the go-go industrial economies that pour CO2 into the atmosphere. Not so easy? Well, actually we’re already doing it, according to this article in today’s New York Times. The story leads off with this:

Global carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years this year as the global recession froze economic activity and slashed energy use around the world.

The decline comes as political leaders are struggling to come up with a common approach to dealing with climate change.

The main factor behind this year’s drop in emissions is the slowdown in industrial activity and trade around the world, according to a study due to be released in November by the International Energy Agency.

But the energy agency, which provides policy advice and research to industrialized nations, found that government actions had also contributed to the drop in emissions. The agency said it expected to see global carbon emissions fall 2.6 percent this year.

So, see, we can do it … all it takes is the economic incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. There is no doubt that last year’s spike in oil prices has a lot to do with this.

The Times gives credit to the economic bust and “government actions,” but there is another important aspect to this, perhaps the most important one of all. Millions of individuals have learned to think twice about driving unnecessary miles, leaving the thermostat at extreme settings, or letting the lights burn all over the house 24/7. They’ve made personal decisions to reduce energy use.

That’s called conservation, and without a doubt conservation is the easiest and most effective way to deal with CO2 emissions in the short term. The more people become conscious of their contributions to carbon pollution and take steps to reduce their “footprint,” the better for all of us.

And what is the secret behind all of this? It’s easy. Think Bill Clinton’s campaign theme: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Yes, the high price of oil and its economic effects — from international trade right down to individual household budgets — is the reason why carbon emissions have dropped.

Your ordinary Joe may not understand global warming or even give a hoot about the environment, but he does react when he sees his wallet taking a hit. Like most of us, he’s on a limited budget, so when the cost of profligate energy use starts to hurt, he does what he can to save money. In this case, he stops using as much energy.

A major reason why alternative energy sources have been slow to arrive on the  scene is that petroleum remained relatively cheap for far too long. In their self-interested way, for decades OPEC and major oil companies did everything in their power to hold down costs and stifle alternatives. They did it by using the  power of supply-and-demand, turning up the pumps whenever there was a new spurt of interest in alternatives. They played that game for years, until it became no longer possible.

It is fairly well documented that the Oil Peak has been reached, or at least we are teetering on the top. Beyond lies the downside slope of the Hubbert Curve, leading to a time when demand for oil cannot be met by supply. That means sustained higher costs for petroleum, which will introduce new opportunities for alternatives. We are already seeing voluntary conservation in response to costs, and as time goes on, we’ll undoubtedly see more people embracing alternatives. After all, the human race has been labeled Homo Economicus, “economic man”. Create an economic incentive, and humankind will react accordingly.

There are limits to how much conservation can do to turn around carbon emissions. Of course, none of us want an endless depression to “solve” the threat of climate change. But there are lessons to be learned from the recent experience, and we need to act on them. In fact, the very forces of  economics will make  it almost automatic, because dwindling oil resources will make it difficult or impossible for the world economy to enter a new “bubble” of rising  expectations. Less oil means higher prices, and we have seen that higher prices will put a lid on demand.

We can hope the world economy will begin to edge back from the brink, but we can’t afford to return to the same-old, same-old process of driving economic growth through continued use of fossil fuels. We need to begin to move toward new-style economies that are based on sustainable and environmentally friendly models.

Can we do it? Who knows — but since there’s probably no alternative it would be best if we at least try.

‘Green Revolution’ Pioneer Borlaug R.I.P.

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

By David L. Brown

borlaug-youngNorman Borlaug died yesterday in Dallas, Texas at 95. He was never a celebrity except among the environmentally conscious few, but to us he was a super star. Dr. Borlaug was credited with saving at least a billion and perhaps two billion lives during his lifelong efforts to improve food production through plant breeding and genetics.

Virtually single-handed he created the applied science behind the burst of food production called “The Green Revolution.” During his career he worked on wheat in Mexico and India, rice in China, and other crops in Africa, creating new hybrid varieties to produce significantly more food from the same acres. His work won the Nobel Prize in 1970.

No one  can fault Dr. Borlaug, and yet…

Well, not to be a Grinch, but the Green Revolution is like a lot of things — it has its dark side. Yes, millions and even billions of lives were “saved” from famine through its effects. But the world now has more than 6.6 billion people, more than three times as many as when Dr. Borlaug began his work in the 1940s. And the trouble is that the “Green Revolution” was never a solution to the food requirements of a growing population — it was merely a band-aid, a jury-rigged response that has allowed the world population to continue to climb until today our food production system is once again straining to keep up.

Over the last half century or so, thanks in large part to efforts such as those of Dr. Borlaug, modern industrial agriculture has done a wonderful job of keeping up with population growth. But that highly productive system is based on cheap and plentiful resources, and those very resources are beginning to become less plentiful and more costly. We saw what happened last year when oil prices soared to well over $100 per barrel. Food prices followed, doubling in some cases.

Food and oil are joined at the hip. Without cheap and abundant oil, there will be no cheap and abundant food. According to many reliable sources, we have reached the peak of oil production, and thus, we have reached the peak of food  production. There may be a few years of ups and downs before this fact settles in, but there seems little doubt that the world has exceeded its capacity to feed its people, and the problem will continue to become worse.

There are many ways in which oil plays such a key role in industrial agriculture. Not only does it power the machines, but it is also the means of mining, extracting, pumping, manufacturing, and transporting materials and equipment to the farm, then carrying food to markets around the world. Oil is the feed stock for chemical processes that produce herbicides, insecticides, and other substances critical for top yields. Higher oil prices create more demand for natural gas, which is the source of nitrogen fertilizer.

Here in the U.S. we cannot easily see how serious this problem really is. To the average American, food costs are a relatively small part of our budgets, around 10-15 percent. But consider the situation in the poorest parts of the world, where many survive on one dollar per day or less. For these unfortunates, the “beneficiaries” of the Green Revolution, most of  their scant incomes goes in one way or another to provide them with something to eat. Nearly a billion are undernourished, eating no more than one meal a day if they’re lucky. They’re living on the desperate edge of famine.

And what does it mean for those billion or two billion people at the bottom of this different kind of “food pyramid” when prices go up? Their incomes certainly do not rise accordingly, and if food that once could be obtained on one dollar a day rises to a dollar-fifty, what will become of those who still earn only one dollar? The answer is not an easy one, for their main choices are to sink further into malnutrition, become criminals and steal from others, attempt to immigrate to a place where conditions are better — or to succumb to famine.

There is a well-known principle called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and while some foresaw the bitter end game now beginning to be played out in the world as a result of the burst of agricultural production and resulting explosion of population that it made possible, few actions were taken to prevent the final calamity that was to  follow, the calamity that is even now beginning to occur.

For more about this subject, use the search field at upper right to find other essays on food security. You might particularly wish to read “Money Won’t Solve Looming Famine,” posted on June 2, in which I examined the harsh fact that the world simply can no longer afford to feed its billions.

So  let us pause for a moment in respect for the memory of Dr. Norman Borlaug. He was a good man, he did great things. One might say that he kept a candle burning against the approaching night. But darkness still gathers, and the candle is sputtering out.

Oil Peak Threatens Economic Recovery

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

By David L. Brown

Well, it’s finally official. We’ve been saying it for years here — that the world was passing Peak Oil and economic disaster would surely follow — but the wall of denial stood strong. Until now.

According to an article today on the website of the British paper The Independent, a noted energy economist says that “[t]he world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production.”

We’ve heard this before, so what is the significance of this particular iteration of a warning that has been issued by others? Well, Dr. Faith Birol is the chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA). And what is that? It is an intragovernmental organization established after the first oil shock in 1972 as an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a collaboration of 30 developed nations. Its mission was to evaluate and report on energy resources.

The trouble is that until recently the IEA was glossing over the emerging fact that the Oil Peak had arrived. As I wrote on November 4, 2007 in an essay titled “The View From Over the Mountain” (read it here), according to an independent energy agency “The message by the IEA, namely that business as usual will also be possible in future, sends a false signal to politicians, industry and consumers — not to forget the media.”

What a difference 20 months (and an economic collapse) can make. Now, according to the Independent article, Dr. Birol reports that

…the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an “oil crunch” within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.

As Oliver Hardy used to say to Stan Laurel, “Well, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.” And there isn’t any excuse for the world economy to be blindsided by this. As we have discussed here for more than three years (and privately for decades), the situation we now face was clearly predicted a half century ago by economist M. King Hubbert. He accurately foresaw the peak of American domestic oil production with his famous (or perhaps infamous if  you work for ExxonMobil or are the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia) Hubbert Curve.

Here, reproduced from my essay of nearly two years ago is an updated version of that curve, as developed by the German-based Energy Watch Group (EWG), a self-described watchdog organization.

oil-peak-2.jpg

The graph shows petroleum production by source, and the red line indicates projected future demand for the precious substance. It is apparent that the demand is not very realistic, since it  is going one way while supply is going the other way. Note that according to this graph, demand began to exceed supply in about 2006 or 2007. That fits well with the oil price spike last year, followed by the economic turmoil that has continued ever since. The growing gap between supply and demand must be closed in some way if the world economy is to continue on its course.

What are the options? Assuming that this graph correctly projects the true supply situation, there is nothing that can be done on the supply side. That means that either demand must come down, or some other adjustments be made to make up the difference. That’s why all the belated fuss about alternative energy — using wind, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels or whatever else can be set into motion.

But it’s too late, you see. Look at the graph. It takes upwards of 20 years to plan, approve and build a nuclear power plant. For wind power we would need to erect literally millions of generators and rebuild our power grid, a huge investment that cannot be accomplished overnight. Biofuels have already had an adverse effect on food prices and availability worldwide, and cannot be pushed far and fast without further disastrous effects.

We should have started 20 or 30 years ago — but we didn’t. Instead we kept importing more and more oil from unfriendly and potentially unstable nations. We kept on building gas guzzling SUVs and pickups used mostly to take kids to school or run to the store. We squandered energy as if it would always be plentiful and cheap. In other words, we ignored common sense and prudence as exemplified in the story of the grasshopper and the ant. And like the grasshopper, we (and I am referring here to the entire human race) are facing the cold winds of a fast-approaching winter with no practical plan to fill the petroleum supply-demand gap.

So, we don’t have time but what about money? If enough could be spent, surely we can build a new alternative energy infrastructure quickly? After all, during World War II the Alaska Highway was built in about eight months. Well, there is a problem with that, and it is that the world is essentially broke. Here in America we’re already spending money like drunken monkeys in a banana factory, and cranking up the presses to print more dollars. At the same time, tax revenues are plummeting just as the government is ramping up to provide elaborate social programs that we cannot afford. Our leaders are proposing a massive investment to limit global warming, and admittedly some of that will result in development of alternative energy. However, too much of the program would be aimed at longer-term proposals such as nuclear power, or to give-aways to energy companies in the form of carbon credits. That won’t solve the problem we face right now, and almost certainly will create new ones that cannot even be foreseen.

What are the other options? Well, necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is also the cruel arbiter of natural forces. If the gap cannot be filled from below, it must be closed by reduced demand. That can be achieved by a number of steps, including first and foremost strict conservation. It is not inconceivable that we will soon see gasoline rationing, something that will not go down well with consumers in America. Our way of life is bound for dramatic change, and there is no way to avoid it.

Emerging economies such as China and India will be caught in the no man’s land of attempted transition from peasant economies to industrialized states. It is clear, to me at least, that in a post-Oil Peak world those drives to mimic the Industrial Revolution of the West will be stillborn unless drastic changes are made in the direction of development.

Finally, let me return to the statements by the IEA economist who, it seems, is still reluctant to reveal the true seriousness of the problem. Despite the dismal statements quoted above, he pulled his punch by telling The Independent that “global [oil] production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.”

Um, he’s saying that Peak Oil won’t arrive until about 2019. That flies in the face of many other opinions, such as the data used to compile the graph above. How can one reconcile the opinion that Peak Oil is still a decade away with this statement from the Independent interview with Dr. Birol himself:

“In its first-ever assessment of the world’s major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was ‘patently unsustainable’, with expected demand far outstripping supply.”

Well, you can’t reconcile it, because there is zero basis to expect that oil production will continue to rise for another decade. According to many best estimates, including that of the EWG from several years ago as pictured in the graph above, the Oil Peak is here, or has already passed. We don’t have 10 years. We have already crossed over the mountain and are staring into the abyss. We can see plain evidence in the fact that the world economy is crashing around us. The two events — Peak Oil and shattered economies — are merely two aspects of the same thing, for those economies were unwisely built and sustained for far too long on a foundation of cheap and abundant oil, something that no longer exists and will never come again.

Biodiesel from Algae Holds Promise

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

By David L. Brown

The challenge of finding renewable sources of energy continues to haunt humanity. The misguided ethanol program that turns corn into alcohol has backfired, driving up food prices and helping create scarcity. Biodiesel made from soybeans is similarly plagued with problems. Other ideas such as growing switchgrass or utilizing wood chips and plant residue have failed to prove practical. One of the problems with those is the high input required to collect, transport and process the plant material.

Another option that has been kicked around for several years now is the idea of producing ethanol from algae, a.k.a. pond scum. Algae actually produces oil which can be extracted and used to replace petroleum. In the presence of sunlight and CO² algae has the ability to double its weight several timea a day. Under controlled conditions, an acre devoted to algae can produce as much as 15 times more biomass per year than an acre devoted to corn. And the good news is that algae does not require large inputs in the form of fuel, fertilizer and chemicals.

But that isn’t all—in theory algae actually grows even more rapidly when fed additional CO² and it can thrive on organic input from sewage, animal waste and other effluents. According to an article that appeared last year on the Science Daily website (here), algae could not only help replace fossil fuels, but help remove carbon from the air while reducing soil and water pollution.

Now no less an entity that ExxonMobil, that giant of fossil fuel companies, has joined the algae bandwagon, according to a report today on the web site of the British newspaper The Independent. Because shis story is so important (and not too long), I will quote it in its entirety:

Oil giant Exxon sees the future–and it is green algae

By Stephen Foley in New York

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

The oil giant that environmentalists love to hate, ExxonMobil, which for years denied the existence of man-made climate change, is sensationally “going green” in a very literal sense – investing $600m (£369m) in algae.

The company says it believes it can make a new kind of fuel for cars and aircraft, one that can be produced in its existing refineries and will not require modification of vehicles’ engines.

At the heart of the project is Craig Venter, the scientist best known for his private-sector effort to sequence the human genome, and his latest company, Synthetic Genomics.

Exxon is putting $300m into its own research and at least as much again into Synthetic Genomic’s efforts to build a lab and, ultimately, large-scale production facilities. Both sides were enthusiastic but cautious announcing the partnership yesterday. “We need to be realistic,” said Emil Jacobs, vice-president of research at Exxon. “This is not going to be easy, and there are no guarantees of success.”

Spending on the algae fuels project will require only a fraction of Exxon’s annual capital budgets of $25bn to $30bn, but it will be the world’s largest biofuels development project of its kind, Mr Venter said.

Environmentalists are keen on algae as a fuel source because, unlike many ethanol products, it is not taking up land, water and crops that might otherwise be given over to the production of food.

ExxonMobil has come under pressure from shareholders – including descendants of its founder, John D Rockefeller – to diversify from fossil fuels, though management insists oil and gas will continue to be the dominant sources of fuel for decades to come.

BP already has a partnership with Synthetic Genomics. Royal Dutch Shell, which is second to ExxonMobil in global refining capacity, announced plans in December for an algae project in Hawaii.

As you can see, ExxonMobil is hardly the first to explore this alternative fuel concept, but it is noteworthy that the world’s largest energy company has recognized the necessity to begin seeking ways to replace petroleum. It is also noteworthy that Craig Venter’s company, Synthetic Genomics is involved with Exxon in the endeavor. Venter is famous for having been the first to map the human genome. On the home page of its web site (here), Synthetic Genomics, Inc. provides the following brief position statement:

The world is facing increasingly difficult challenges today. Population growth resulting in the growing demand for critical resources such as energy, clean water, food and medicine are taxing our fragile planet. To fulfill these needs we need disruptive technologies. We believe genomic advances offer the world viable, sustainable alternatives.

At Synthetic Genomics Inc. we are creating genomic-driven commercial solutions to revolutionize many industries. We have started by focusing on energy, but we imagine a future where our science could be used to produce a variety of products, from synthetically derived vaccines to prevent human diseases to efficient cost effective ways to create clean drinking water. The world is dependent on science and we’re leading the way in turning novel science into life-changing solutions.

The latest news about algae demonstrates that there may be viable long-term alternatives to fossil fuels. It’s too bad progress on these and similar programs was not begun several decades ago when the first oil shortages occurred. Exxon’s spokesperson states that oil and gas will remain “dominant” for decades to come, but falling production tells a different story. We are past the Oil Peak and the era of cheap and plentiful oil is over. We are now in a period where prices and supplies are creating a yo-yo market, and that cannot provide a sound basis for economic stability.

Here is an artist’s rendering showing a conception of how an algae farm could be built in a desert environment unsuited for agricultural use. The facility would produce biodiesel fuel.

algae_farm

We need to develop all kinds of truly sustainable energy sources as rapidly as possible. That includes wind, solar, wave, geothermal, and now algae farming. Our future depends upon it.

No End In Sight for Oil Price Troubles

Friday, June 12th, 2009

By David L. Brown

Just after I wrote the previous post about the up-and-down cycle of the petroleum markets, and their joined-at-the-hip effects on world economies, I saw the following news report on FoxNews.com. It makes an appropriate addendum to my musings on the subject.

Gas Prices Worry Longtime Oilman

June 12, 2009 – 3:08 pm

The price of oil has its ups and downs. But Tex Pitfield, a former fuel company president and petroleum industry consultant, says gone are the days of dollar a gallon gas.

With America still in a recession, Pitfield says the current spike in oil prices could not come at a worse time. Here’s what he told FOX News in a recent interview:

“The dramatic increase in the cost of energy last summer is what put this economy over the edge, and now we’re in the situation we’re in. How ironic that, here we are in the deep end of the pool drowning and the cost of energy is going through the roof again.”

More evidence for the case that the world economies are due for a continuing wave of shocks in the post Peak Oil era. And what is this “dollar a gallon gas” thing? I thought we passed that point a long time ago. The odds more strongly favor five dollar gas than any return to dollar gas.

For those of you who have not been around as long as I have, I can report that when I was a youth I purchased gas for as little as ten cents a gallon. For a dollar, you could nearly fill your tank. That surely puts the lie to the French saying “plus c’est la même chose” (the more things change, the more they stay the same). The longer I live, the more it seems the opposite is true.