A regular reader of this blog kindly sent me a link to the International Energy Agency's new study on global natural gas, to which he contributed. The report, entitled, "Are We Entering A Golden Age for Gas?" was launched with a press conference yesterday in London. It presents a scenario in which gas use grows rapidly due to faster demand growth, particularly in the developing world, increased supply from unconventional sources such as shale gas, and a slower expansion of nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daichi accident. Its key findings envision gas providing 25% of world energy by 2035, up from 21% today, and eclipsing the share of coal before 2030, with corresponding benefits for global greenhouse gas emissions.
The IEA's presenters were careful to point out that they are not proposing this view as the likeliest scenario, but as an offshoot of their primary World Energy Outlook scenario published last fall, which incorporated the commitments at the Copenhagen climate conference. The new gas scenario depends on a number of uncertainties, including the resolution of some of the concerns about the environmental impacts of unconventional gas production, along with the realization of carbon-intensity and gas-development targets in places like China. However, it doesn't depend on new technology or dramatic changes such as a massive move to natural gas for vehicle use. (The latter is presented as a "High Impact Low Probability" sensitivity.) Its big shifts occur in the big existing gas market segments, for power generation globally and for industry and buildings in the developing world.
I was struck by several elements of the scenario. First, although much of the focus on unconventional gas has been on North America, where many of the techniques were pioneered, this is very much a global story. The IEA shows estimated unconventional gas resources from shale, "tight gas" and coal-bed methane that exceed conventional gas resources in Asia and Africa and rival them even in Eastern Europe/Eurasia. On the strength of its unconventional resources China could become the world's third-largest gas producer by 2035, behind Russia and the US. So even if the US plaintiffs bar attempts to turn "fracking" into the next tobacco or asbestos, unconventional gas exploitation will likely progress elsewhere. At the same time, increases in conventional gas production are expected to exceed those from unconventional sources, by 60/40 over the period studied. That requires big increases in LNG production in Australia and a substantial increase in pipeline capacity linking Russian and Central Asian gas to markets in Europe and Asia. It's also worth noting that despite the shale gas bonanza, the IEA doesn't envision the US becoming a net gas exporter.
As one of my mentors frequently reminded me, natural gas doesn't get developed without a market, and in this scenario the biggest source of new demand is in power generation, where the combination of lower gas prices and the 60% thermal efficiency of combined cycle gas turbines makes gas highly competitive, even with coal. It's less clear whether gas is taking market share from new nuclear based on price, or mainly filling the gap that the response to Fukushima is leaving in some markets. From what I heard on a power industry webinar yesterday, the former is a significant factor, at least in the US. The strong connection between gas and power is another reason why so much of the growth in gas demand--80% by the IEA's estimate--is expected to occur in developing countries including China and India, where electricity demand is expanding at rates that the US and Europe haven't experienced for years or decades. Perhaps the most startling forecast in the report is that China's gas demand could grow from roughly matching Germany's today to about the level of the entire EU in 25 years. That would be supported as much by additional imports as from domestic unconventional gas output.
As I'd have expected, the IEA provided a sober assessment of the environmental implications of their scenario. Increasing the share of gas in global energy demand reduces global GHG emissions by 160 million tons of CO2 equivalent by 2035--less than 1% of total emissions--by substituting for coal and some oil. That's a lot less than if the extra gas didn't also contribute to higher energy demand by keeping electricity prices lower, while outcompeting some lower-emission renewables and nuclear projects. The IEA states plainly that relying on more gas is not a silver bullet for climate change, although it is a positive step.
In addition to pointing out the need for safe handling of the fluids involved in hydraulic fracturing, the report also specifically addresses the critique of Howarth and others concerning the direct emissions from shale gas production. The IEA found that CO2-equivalent emissions for shale gas from well to burner exceed those for conventional gas by 3.5%-12%, depending on whether the methane liberated during well completion is captured, flared or vented to the atmosphere. Even at the high end, that does not negate gas's emissions advantage over other fossil fuels, especially when power generation efficiencies are factored in. The report's authors apparently see most of the excess emissions compared to conventional gas production as representing an opportunity that can be captured with current technology and best practices.
The IEA put a price tag on this shift to gas: a cumulative $8 trillion through 2035 , nearly $1 trillion higher than the gas infrastructure investment in their global energy scenario of last fall. Those figures aren't as hard to fathom in the context of developed-country budget deficits and debt as they might seem, because they mainly reflect unsubsidized, economically attractive investments by publicly-traded and state-owned energy companies that are making healthy profits and have substantial cash flow on which to draw. Surprisingly, the IEA sees most of the incremental investment in gas coming at the expense of oil. Although they deliberately framed the title of their scenario as a question that hinges on a number of variables, the report comes across as a plausible and credible glimpse of our possible energy future.
Showing posts with label scenario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scenario. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Fueling the World's Growth
Several articles led me to what is apparently BP's first-ever public long-term energy forecast, "BP Energy Outlook 2030", which was released earlier this week. It's a fascinating document on several levels, and it builds on the reputation established by the BP Statistical Review, an annual compendium of historical energy data and trends. The figure that I've already seen cited in a number of places is that BP expects fossil fuels to contribute just 64% of the growth in energy over the next twenty years, compared to 83% in the last twenty. A quick internet search revealed many other tidbits that reporters and bloggers have picked up on, including a very interesting comparison of future energy security trends among China, the EU and US. I could spend hours detailing the observations that intrigued me, but I'll focus on just a few.
The mere fact of BP's releasing such a forecast seems noteworthy. Perhaps it's aimed at increasing transparency under a new CEO, as Mr. Dudley suggests in his introduction, or maybe the folks who've been creating such documents internally finally convinced management that they had at least as much PR value as the venerable Statistical Review. Their approach to the report also reminds us just how different BP's culture is from that of its UK (and Dutch) arch-rival Shell, which has long preferred scenario planning to conventional forecasting. Both have their uses, though for deep insights I also prefer scenarios and use that technique with my clients. I suggest having a look at Shell's latest publicly-available pair of scenarios looking out to 2050 for another perspective on future energy. The current edition morphs a previous version's theme of "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) into "TANIA" (There Are No Ideal Answers). Amen. And now back to BP's point of view.
The report's projection concerning how energy growth is likely to be satisfied over the next two decades is a classic half-full/half-empty proposition. On the half-full side I consider it a remarkable indication of the success of renewables and the expansion of global interest in nuclear power--it's really only a "renaissance" in the US, never having waned in many other places. The idea that the combination of these sources could be viewed in a serious base-case projection as providing more than a third of incremental energy growth would have lacked credibility not very long ago, for reasons the charts on page 10 of the report should make clear. However, I have no doubt that many will find such a projection altogether too faint-hearted, believing that we surely ought to be able to dispense with these dirty fuels entirely within two decades or less. Well, the first step toward living without oil and coal (and maybe even gas) is being able to cover 100% of future energy growth from other sources. BP makes a coherent argument that we are not yet at that point, even in the more aggressive "policy case" results they present later in the report.
From the perspective of long-term emissions reductions and future energy transformation, two other sets of figures in the outlook look more promising. First is the lengthy discussion of energy efficiency and the accelerating reduction in the energy intensity of GDP that's woven all through the document. That is the main reason why, in a view that is distinctly not a low-growth scenario, total energy demand grows by just 39% and not some much higher value. The other key point is that BP sees 57% of that growth being focused on electricity, rather than transportation fuels. Since we have many more effective low-emission options for making electricity than transportation fuels, the opportunity to reduce emissions in the future will expand significantly, even if in the short run coal is merely losing market share, while its use still increases in absolute terms.
BP's detailed projections for oil and biofuels, along with the growth of China, deserve an entire posting of their own, and perhaps I'll come back to them in the next week or two. In the meantime the last item I wanted to highlight concerns energy security, which has been such a prevalent theme in US politics and public discussion for so long. As I read the chart on page 72--and to the extent I accept its assumptions--I would not trade (energy) places with the EU or China for all the tea in the world, despite all the recent talk of US decline and Chinese ascendancy.
With regard to Europe we see the inevitable consequences of the peaking and decline of the North Sea oil and gas resources. Already more dependent than the US for imports of both oil and gas at this point, Europe will need a generation for its massive focus on renewables to stem the steady rise of its energy import dependence. China's situation is entirely different, as its explosive growth outruns the steady increases in its oil and gas production. If you want to understand why China hasn't abandoned coal and suddenly seems so interested in nuclear and renewables, this picture is worth the proverbial thousand words. Of course the US trajectory is hardly a given. Skim through the report's other charts to see how much that pleasant outcome of greatly improved energy independence depends on shale gas (page 54), fuel economy gains (page 30) and biofuels (page 40). And note that BP suggests that most of the latter will come from "first generation" sources--corn and sugar cane--in this timeframe.
The mere fact of BP's releasing such a forecast seems noteworthy. Perhaps it's aimed at increasing transparency under a new CEO, as Mr. Dudley suggests in his introduction, or maybe the folks who've been creating such documents internally finally convinced management that they had at least as much PR value as the venerable Statistical Review. Their approach to the report also reminds us just how different BP's culture is from that of its UK (and Dutch) arch-rival Shell, which has long preferred scenario planning to conventional forecasting. Both have their uses, though for deep insights I also prefer scenarios and use that technique with my clients. I suggest having a look at Shell's latest publicly-available pair of scenarios looking out to 2050 for another perspective on future energy. The current edition morphs a previous version's theme of "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) into "TANIA" (There Are No Ideal Answers). Amen. And now back to BP's point of view.
The report's projection concerning how energy growth is likely to be satisfied over the next two decades is a classic half-full/half-empty proposition. On the half-full side I consider it a remarkable indication of the success of renewables and the expansion of global interest in nuclear power--it's really only a "renaissance" in the US, never having waned in many other places. The idea that the combination of these sources could be viewed in a serious base-case projection as providing more than a third of incremental energy growth would have lacked credibility not very long ago, for reasons the charts on page 10 of the report should make clear. However, I have no doubt that many will find such a projection altogether too faint-hearted, believing that we surely ought to be able to dispense with these dirty fuels entirely within two decades or less. Well, the first step toward living without oil and coal (and maybe even gas) is being able to cover 100% of future energy growth from other sources. BP makes a coherent argument that we are not yet at that point, even in the more aggressive "policy case" results they present later in the report.
From the perspective of long-term emissions reductions and future energy transformation, two other sets of figures in the outlook look more promising. First is the lengthy discussion of energy efficiency and the accelerating reduction in the energy intensity of GDP that's woven all through the document. That is the main reason why, in a view that is distinctly not a low-growth scenario, total energy demand grows by just 39% and not some much higher value. The other key point is that BP sees 57% of that growth being focused on electricity, rather than transportation fuels. Since we have many more effective low-emission options for making electricity than transportation fuels, the opportunity to reduce emissions in the future will expand significantly, even if in the short run coal is merely losing market share, while its use still increases in absolute terms.
BP's detailed projections for oil and biofuels, along with the growth of China, deserve an entire posting of their own, and perhaps I'll come back to them in the next week or two. In the meantime the last item I wanted to highlight concerns energy security, which has been such a prevalent theme in US politics and public discussion for so long. As I read the chart on page 72--and to the extent I accept its assumptions--I would not trade (energy) places with the EU or China for all the tea in the world, despite all the recent talk of US decline and Chinese ascendancy.
With regard to Europe we see the inevitable consequences of the peaking and decline of the North Sea oil and gas resources. Already more dependent than the US for imports of both oil and gas at this point, Europe will need a generation for its massive focus on renewables to stem the steady rise of its energy import dependence. China's situation is entirely different, as its explosive growth outruns the steady increases in its oil and gas production. If you want to understand why China hasn't abandoned coal and suddenly seems so interested in nuclear and renewables, this picture is worth the proverbial thousand words. Of course the US trajectory is hardly a given. Skim through the report's other charts to see how much that pleasant outcome of greatly improved energy independence depends on shale gas (page 54), fuel economy gains (page 30) and biofuels (page 40). And note that BP suggests that most of the latter will come from "first generation" sources--corn and sugar cane--in this timeframe.
Monday, March 09, 2009
The End of the World As We Know It?
The opinion section of the Sunday New York Times made for sobering reading this weekend. While the Times has hardly been a bastion of economic optimism of late, three op-eds stood out for their shared sense that we might be on the brink of truly wrenching change. Tom Friedman invoked an enviro-economic tipping point, citing one expert's prognosis of a "Great Disruption;" a best-selling author saw the risk of "economic cataclysm" in the bursting of Eastern Europe's foreign debt bubble; and another found parallels to the Austria-Hungary of 1913, one year before the war that ended at least three empires and mortally wounded a couple of others. But while the systemic unraveling of the past six months or so makes such possibilities likelier than they would have been just a few years ago, the odds still favor a much less drastic result than revolution or apocalypse. The enormous recent increase in the range of uncertainties we face lends added credibility to the direst scenarios. However, it's important to realize that these predictions are not certainties, unless our responses make them so. That applies to energy, as well.
When I think about the possible paths of energy supply and demand over the next few years, they depend much less on specific energy or environmental trends than on the future state of the economy. Forecasting oil prices has become meaningless without a clear view of growth, particularly in the US and China. Demand may have rebounded recently in the US, but the combination of a crippling financial crisis with a deep cyclical downturn has Americans questioning the future in ways that I haven't seen in decades, other than the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The tangible effects of what noted historian Niall Ferguson has dubbed the "Great Recession" serve to reinforce the hangover of millennial angst from the turn of the century, which manifested in the more extreme views of Y2K and more recently Peak Oil. Layer in the propensity of my own Baby Boom generation to see itself at the epicenter of great events, and the stage is set for receptiveness to the view that we stand on the brink of unprecedented, permanently life-altering change.
When I was involved in my first scenario planning project at Texaco, we came up with three remarkably insightful views of the future of the energy industry, at least two of which have remained relevant far longer than any of us could have guessed. They received wide distribution throughout the company and had the general support of many in upper management. However, that project also came up with the seeds of another scenario, a much darker view involving the rejection of globalization and a growing wave of anti-Americanism around the world. Although in some respects it was no less prescient--or challenging--than the other three scenarios, it went nowhere, because the context for exploring it didn't exist in 1997. The external consultants who guided us through the process advised us not to pursue it, or risk destroying the credibility of the entire effort. That was good advice, even in retrospect, and it served as a useful lesson about the way that assessments of the future interact with our views of the present and our experience of the past. They must also be grounded in reality.
That's certainly true for energy, today. However much we might consider our energy future to be in flux, our views of it must take into account the embedded dominance of fossil fuels in our energy systems. Given the scale of these systems, that dominance will still exist next year and the following year, no matter what policies are enacted in the US or elsewhere. This might all seem to be up for grabs, but that's really only true in the long term. I've believed for a long time that we are on the threshold of a revolution in the ways that we produce and use energy, and it has arguably already begun. But no matter what happens in the economy, short of a massive global collapse, this revolution cannot be completed overnight. It will take decades, and that is equally true of our response to man-made climate change, which took a century to create.
Whenever I watch the news or read the latest statistics about the economy, I worry about what next year might look like. The uncertainties are huge and daunting. But I also know that while the chances of a Great Depression-style collapse or a radical socio-enviro-political transformation have risen, the economic future is likelier to resemble the last few decades, minus the unsustainable levels of personal and institutional debt. In the same way, the energy transformation is likely to play out as a set of big, gradual shifts: away from coal and other carbon-intensive fuels and toward renewable energy and nuclear power, and away from liquid transportation fuels and towards the eventual electrification of most ground vehicles. These transitions will take time, and that means that, whatever their price, a decade from now there will still be electricity and natural gas for the appliances and devices you buy today, and there will still be fuel for the car you buy today. That's one set of uncertainties over which we shouldn't lose sleep.
When I think about the possible paths of energy supply and demand over the next few years, they depend much less on specific energy or environmental trends than on the future state of the economy. Forecasting oil prices has become meaningless without a clear view of growth, particularly in the US and China. Demand may have rebounded recently in the US, but the combination of a crippling financial crisis with a deep cyclical downturn has Americans questioning the future in ways that I haven't seen in decades, other than the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The tangible effects of what noted historian Niall Ferguson has dubbed the "Great Recession" serve to reinforce the hangover of millennial angst from the turn of the century, which manifested in the more extreme views of Y2K and more recently Peak Oil. Layer in the propensity of my own Baby Boom generation to see itself at the epicenter of great events, and the stage is set for receptiveness to the view that we stand on the brink of unprecedented, permanently life-altering change.
When I was involved in my first scenario planning project at Texaco, we came up with three remarkably insightful views of the future of the energy industry, at least two of which have remained relevant far longer than any of us could have guessed. They received wide distribution throughout the company and had the general support of many in upper management. However, that project also came up with the seeds of another scenario, a much darker view involving the rejection of globalization and a growing wave of anti-Americanism around the world. Although in some respects it was no less prescient--or challenging--than the other three scenarios, it went nowhere, because the context for exploring it didn't exist in 1997. The external consultants who guided us through the process advised us not to pursue it, or risk destroying the credibility of the entire effort. That was good advice, even in retrospect, and it served as a useful lesson about the way that assessments of the future interact with our views of the present and our experience of the past. They must also be grounded in reality.
That's certainly true for energy, today. However much we might consider our energy future to be in flux, our views of it must take into account the embedded dominance of fossil fuels in our energy systems. Given the scale of these systems, that dominance will still exist next year and the following year, no matter what policies are enacted in the US or elsewhere. This might all seem to be up for grabs, but that's really only true in the long term. I've believed for a long time that we are on the threshold of a revolution in the ways that we produce and use energy, and it has arguably already begun. But no matter what happens in the economy, short of a massive global collapse, this revolution cannot be completed overnight. It will take decades, and that is equally true of our response to man-made climate change, which took a century to create.
Whenever I watch the news or read the latest statistics about the economy, I worry about what next year might look like. The uncertainties are huge and daunting. But I also know that while the chances of a Great Depression-style collapse or a radical socio-enviro-political transformation have risen, the economic future is likelier to resemble the last few decades, minus the unsustainable levels of personal and institutional debt. In the same way, the energy transformation is likely to play out as a set of big, gradual shifts: away from coal and other carbon-intensive fuels and toward renewable energy and nuclear power, and away from liquid transportation fuels and towards the eventual electrification of most ground vehicles. These transitions will take time, and that means that, whatever their price, a decade from now there will still be electricity and natural gas for the appliances and devices you buy today, and there will still be fuel for the car you buy today. That's one set of uncertainties over which we shouldn't lose sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)