How Would We Provide Enough Energy For 11 Billion People?

• Reconciling energy and environmental concerns was challenging enough when global population seemed headed for a plateau around 9 billion.
• A new forecast of up to 12 billion people by 2100 raises large questions about the capacity of current energy technologies to meet future global needs.

The combination of forecasted global economic weakness and growing non-OPEC production continues to weigh on oil prices.  Brent crude has fallen below $90 per barrel, and the US benchmark has been flirting with $80. But just when the rapid growth of energy supplies has undermined the mood of energy scarcity that prevailed for the last four decades, a group of demographers has thrown us a curve ball, though admittedly a very long one. 

In the 1970s many people were concerned about a "population explosion." Dystopian fiction--already a well-established sub-genre--featured visions of a grossly overcrowded future earth, along the lines of "Soylent Green." However, something happened on the way to such nightmares: birth rates in developed countries as well as large developing ones like China slowed in tandem with rising incomes. Instead of a world of 12 billion by 2100 or sooner, long-term population estimates in the last decade, including from the United Nations, began to focus on an eventual plateau around 9 billion.

Now it appears those lower forecasts might have been too optimistic, particularly with regard to birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa. The analysis in a paper published in Science last month suggests that growth will continue beyond the end of the current century. The authors expect global population in 2100 to reach 9.6 to 12.3 billion. That could have significant implications for energy demand and climate change, among other environmental and development issues, while in turn being influenced by them.  Nick Butler, who writes on energy for the Financial Times, looked at this from the perspective of oil and other energy sources and concluded, "None of the current technologies...offer an adequate answer."

I would take Mr. Butler's observation a step farther.  It's extremely challenging to say anything confidently concerning how much energy the world of 2100 might need, or where it will come from. Forecasts are rarely accurate beyond a few years, and even scenario methods struggle to cope with the unknown-unknowns involved in such time frames.

Recall that in 1928--as far removed from today as 2100-- world oil production was less than 5 million barrels per day, and the first chain reaction making nuclear power possible was still 14 years in the future. Natural gas was mainly viewed as a low-value byproduct of oil production, while wind power was considered quaint. And with a global population of just over 2 billion at the time, meeting the energy needs of today's 7 billion might have seemed even more daunting than supplying 11 or 12 billion does to us.

It's also worth keeping in mind that more than three-fourths of today's oil is consumed by countries with just 60% of the world's population.  The curve drops off steeply from there, leaving roughly 2 billion without modern energy services. So the energy implications of an extra two billion people by the turn of the century depend heavily on whether their energy demand looks more like today's top 4 billion or bottom 2 billion energy consumers. The recent "Africa Energy Outlook" from  the International Energy Agency (IEA) examined how energy supply on that continent might develop, along with the necessity of shifting investment from exports to domestic consumption to bridge that gap.

For that matter, even if an expansion of global fossil fuel production on the scale required to meet the needs of billions of additional consumers were possible, due to the technology that is currently unlocking oil and gas from source rock rather than conventional reservoirs--a.k.a. the shale revolution--it would bypass any notions of a "carbon budget" that might constrain the projected global temperature increase to a manageable level. It's a reasonable bet that however many people are alive in 2100, they will use less fossil fuels per capita than we do.

Consider what some of today's mainstream forecasts indicate about the future energy mix. The main "New Policies" scenario of the IEA's 2013 World Energy Outlook sees renewable energy growing from 11% to 18% of total primary energy by 2035, while its more aggressive "450" scenario has these sources supplying 26%, with commensurate reductions in fossil fuels. Shell's current long-range scenarios envision divergent futures in which fossil fuels still supply 50-60% of nearly doubled energy demand by 2060, but shrink to around 20% or less by 2100.

One big trend that could help facilitate that kind of change is electrification, which will increasingly displace liquid fuels from illumination, cooking, and even transportation. That's important because while we have few practical large-scale alternatives to petroleum for liquid fuels, we have many ways to generate electricity and could accommodate more, including the long-awaited arrival of practical nuclear fusion--perhaps along the lines announced by Lockheed Martin earlier this month--or some other, currently unanticipated energy source. Eight decades would be more than sufficient for an entirely new generating technology to become significant. 

Reconciling the energy needs of a large, growing population with preventing dangerous global warming--referred to by some as the "energy dilemma"--thus appears to require a sustained, protracted transformation of the entire energy economy. That shouldn't be a surprising insight. The bigger question is whether such a transformation can be achieved through the gradual evolution of the energy technologies available today, or whether it will require revolutionary developments. That remains a matter of considerable debate in energy circles. 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Unlocking the UK's Shale Gas Potential

• Following estimates of substantial shale gas resources underlying parts of Britain, the UK government is proposing incentives for companies and local communities to encourage its timely development.
• Even if it ultimately proved less transformative than in the US, shale gas could balance the UK's future energy mix, while setting an example that other shale-rich EU countries could follow. 

Shale gas development has been slow out of the starting blocks in Europe, for reasons that have been widely discussed.  These include differences in mineral rights ownership, smaller onshore oil and gas service sectors, and significantly fewer onshore wells drilled in the past, compared to the US.  Local opposition to hydraulic fracturing also plays a role in some countries. Last month the UK government announced new proposals intended to address some of these challenges and make shale gas more attractive to produce there. The Prime Minister underlined these proposals in an op-ed in Sunday's Telegraph.

The UK's natural gas market has been experiencing problems similar to those the US encountered in the last decade, prior to wide-scale development of shale gas resources.  Natural gas production from the offshore fields of the UK sector of the North Sea, which provided an energy surplus until about ten years ago, has declined rapidly. As a result, the Interconnector UK, a bi-directional gas pipeline linking Britain to continental Europe, has recently operated mainly in import mode. UK natural gas prices have been correspondingly high and volatile, spiking briefly to around $17 per million BTUs this March. Prices in excess of $10/MMBTU are typical.

Against this background, the UK government is understandably interested in pursuing the exploration of the country's potentially enormous shale gas deposits.  In June the British Geological Survey released its detailed estimate for the Bowland shale in the north of England.  With a range of 822-2,281 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas-in-place, and a "central estimate" of 1,329 TCF, this looks like a significant resource. Even at the low end of the BGS assessment, and using a conservative figure of 15% recovery based on relevant US shale gas recovery rates, the Bowland could provide 120 TCF or more of technically recoverable gas, the equivalent of over 40 years of current UK consumption.

Two aspects of the government's proposals caught my attention.  First, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated his plan to make development attractive for producers with a new tax structure that he intends to be "the most generous for shale in the world." Earnings from shale would be taxed at 30%, compared to 62% for other hydrocarbon projects.  With only a few companies currently exploring for shale, that should attract additional drillers, along with the service companies that perform many of the key activities at the well site. 

I was more intrigued by the proposal--apparently originating with industry--to provide local communities with a benefit of at least £100,000 per well-site that is hydraulically fractured, or "fracked", plus a small share of gas revenue. In a country where the government owns the sub-surface property rights, this could be a crucial step in gaining local support for projects that, in addition to significant economic activity and eventually local employment, will also result in unavoidable increases in noise, traffic and other intrusions in daily life during the weeks or months in which each site is being prepared, drilled, completed and brought on-line, and for the longer periods that crews would be operating in the area.

We've certainly seen the importance of local benefits in promoting receptiveness towards gas drilling in the US, where most shale development has occurred on private land, and where royalties from production provide property owners with regular payments ranging from helpful to lifestyle-altering, depending on production rates and the ownership interests. Sharing financial benefits from shale production at the community level, rather than with individuals, might even galvanize broader-based support than in some parts of the US. Much will depend on whether British communities consider the offered compensation sufficiently generous.

UK shale development still faces significant above- and below-ground uncertainties that only time and drilling can resolve.  Nor is it clear whether development of the Bowland shale would have as large an impact on the UK gas market as shale gas has had here.  Skeptics can be found among opposition politicians and respected energy analysts, though I must say their arguments about high costs and low production rates sound very similar to those that I heard in energy conferences in the US not many years ago.  Signposts to watch include the number of drilling companies moving into the north of England and emulation of the UK government's pro-development policies by other countries.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Our Shifting Energy Diet

It's fairly easy to agree on the desirability of shifting our energy diet away from fossil fuels and toward more renewable or sustainable sources, but it's much harder to agree on the time scale involved. While recognizing the great potential of renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal power, along with advanced, non-food-based biofuels, I am convinced that the transition will take much longer than many hope--longer than many will have patience for, in light of pressing concerns about energy security and the environment. When considering future shifts in our energy diet, it's instructive to review some of the changes we've already experienced, and how long they took. The graph below displays the relative contribution of America's main energy sources since 1949, based on data from the Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy.

This chart, which compares the proportional, rather than absolute contribution of each source as a percent of the total, shows that the US energy diet has experienced constant change over the last seven decades. Some of these changes have been dramatic, such as the erosion of coal's market share in the 1950s and '60s by oil and natural gas, while others, such as the resurgence of biomass-based energy since the 1970s are less dramatic but still noticeable. On the scale of this graph the non-biomass renewables that I've lumped together appear relatively steady, because the recent rapid growth of wind and solar energy has so far only compensated for a contemporaneous decline in hydropower output. I'd expect the growth of that green segment to be more obvious in a few years, though still not on the scale of nuclear power.

The chart also reminds us that however prominent a given energy source might have become during this period, none overwhelmed the others. We talk a great deal about oil's dominance, yet it never exceeded a 48% share of our energy diet, and it has recently fallen below 37%. In fact, you'd have to go all the way back to the 1920s to find an energy source with a market share above 60%, which coal still enjoyed during the early years of oil's rise as the combination of mass-produced cars and the big oil finds in East Texas and Oklahoma upended the US energy landscape. That's one reason I generally find forecasts of renewables capturing 80% of the energy market within a few decades to be improbable.

Perhaps the most relevant example for renewables of a disruptive energy technology capturing a significant share of the market is commercial nuclear power, which contributed just 0.1% of US energy in 1962. That's about what solar provides today. Yet even with a major push by utilities and government and broadly favorable market acceptance until after the Three Mile Island accident, it still took nuclear power 25 years to reach a 6% share of total US primary energy, and nearly 40 years to reach its current 8% or so. Today's renewables also face similar limits on their potential market penetration, albeit due to very different factors relating to intermittency and the high cost of energy storage.

What would it take for renewables to repeat the model of oil's success against coal? In the absence of a high carbon price or incentives on a level unlikely to be either politically feasible or affordable in the current environment, I believe it would require technologies that don't just reduce greenhouse gas emissions or local pollutants, but actually enable something new and very attractive to consumers and businesses, along the lines of the quantum leaps in mobility and other economic activity that oil made possible. Otherwise, their promoters should be prepared to play a long game, in much the same way that the conventional energy industry did when it was building its market post World War II. Do investors and policy makers have the patience that requires?

By the way The Energy Collective is offering a free virtual conference on November 30 on the subject of "How to Save A Planet on A Budget." The conference includes panel discussions and case studies moderated by Marc Gunther of Fortune magazine, Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute, and Gernot Wagner, economist at the Environmental Defense Fund. To register click here.

I'd also like to wish my US readers a pleasant Thanksgiving weekend.