The Powers That Be (Ch 4-7)
By
Fowzia Haji Abdi, Yu Chen, and Dai Jin
As engineers when we hear the word energy, one
of the first things that come to mind is the equation, ENERGY = FORCE x
DISTANCE. Furthermore we are taught that energy in society is about
transformation, whether it’s creating, building, altering, moving, and even
demolishing things. Well, for the purpose of this book, “energy” itself means
the use of some resource; fossil fuels, water, air, sunlight, wind etc.
As with all things, with resource comes
issues of availability, cost, climate impact, sustainability. And within the 21st
century we have become witness to a historical moment due to the fact that we
already saw 3 major factors, the new oil shock, Modernization in developing
countries, Climate change. 1
As such, this is the main reason as to why the
era of fossil fuels, while it is still considered to be leading in the market and
expanding, is in transition toward greater energy diversity.
Due to the vast and growing progress of
technology today, our world has come to be an interconnected web of markets and
relationships. For example, green evolution wouldn’t be able to happen in
America without causing significant changes somewhere else in the world, such
as Canada and Mexico, who are the largest suppliers of oil and gas to America,
or Brazil and Holland that have come to rely on the U.S exports of coal, etc. As
a result, it has become a forgone conclusion that “energy independence” is
truly a myth in the world that has come to rely on strong global relations, but
people have been known to use the term anyway because it sells itself as a good
idea, and politicians have been known to use it to gain symbolic power that
comes from people who will get behind them due to their promises, whether it is
genuine or otherwise, to help save the earth right. Also, there is of course, the
fact that there are some Nations self-concerned agendas about energy security
that usually takes priority; the Foreign Oil of the U.S., the Imports of China,
the Inseparable Natural Gas ties to Russia the EU has established, and lastly
the global demand for petroleum by the OPEC.
Due to the impact of how we use our
resources today, there is significant factors impacting Climate change that has
led to it directing energy policies. The reason for this is, because while
fossil fuel belongs to individual nations, it effects the current and future
global community, and nature. It can bring security questions too, if there are
extreme impacts such as drought for example, it could destabilize cities,
causing migration, and bringing about border conflicts. 1
The way the author explained the concept of
reserves and resources, is that Resources is how much in absolute terms lies in
the ground, in all forms, based on all available measurements. Reserves are
that portion we think can be profitably recovered. 1
So the question is how
much oil is there? Well With all the confusing categories set forth by the SEC
rules on oil reserves, not to mention the OPEC’s embraced system based on
“declared” reserves rather than “actual” reserves, that state the higher
reserves, the higher the production, thus higher revenue and status. It is not
surprising that every country in the organization started to exaggerate their
numbers that they reported on proven oil, which is why there has been no
evidence of a decline since the 1990s. As such the author states that “In
“reserves” there is really no way of knowing how much recoverable oil the world
has or will continue to have. However in “resources” recoverable or not, is
thought to range from 12-20 trillion bbls (some estimate even higher)” 1
However, Petroleum is the most highly
traded commodity on Earth, and sold at a fast and easily accessible rate on a
fully global market. For example, if Venezuela decided not to send any more oil
to the US, the US refineries will simply get it from somewhere else (probably
from countries that buy the oil from Venezuela and just simply resell it).
2
As a result, the amount of petroleum a
nation produces can also be a function of policy. Montgomery writes that
“Nations that lock out investment in their reserves by foreign companies, yet
can’t develop these reserves on their own, have essentially limited their
future production. If their infrastructure is old and leaky and little is done
to fix it, this adds another limit on what can be supplied. Finally, production
limits can come from international policies.” 1
For example, if one was to take the case of
Iran, which combines all of these factors, one would notice that Long-term
sanctions against the country due to its support for terrorism make it ambiguous
when new discoveries might be established. In the meantime, Iran’s existing
fields urgently need improvement, since previously it was the country was known
to produce over 5.5 Mbbls/d in the 1970s, and this has never been come close to
since the Revolution of 1979; the closest figure in 2009 was around 4 Mbbls/d.
As such, Politics is has come to be considered to greatly impact the level of
global oil supply. However, there is a silver lining since reserves are
known to be extremely dynamic, and continually shifting. According to the
author “Even the boundary between “conventional” and “unconventional” is fluid;
in 1950, offshore oil was nonexistent, “unconventional”; by 1980, such oil
accounted for 20% of all U.S. oil production and was booked as “conventional.”
Higher prices motivating improvements in technology played the central role
here. Evolving innovation and economic reality have repeatedly brought the cost
of developing “marginal,” expensive reserves to the “conventional” level. What
determines how much oil the world can supply depends on more than a few
marmoreal numbers and a single, fixed method.” 1
In 1973 Arab Oil Embargo occurred, which
was in response to the US coming to aid Israel, against Egypt and Syria who
wanted to regain Arab territories lost to Israel. Well this crisis had a large
and dangerous impact on global relations. This crisis extended to natural gas
and led to the passing in 1978 of the Fuel Use Act, restricting gas use and
thus encouraging coal. 4
As evidence with the increase in fracking
in the US, the geopolitical advantages of shale oil and gas have become clear.
In three years alone, the US cut its oil imports significantly in half and
became self-sufficient in gas, and will very soon begin exporting liquefied
natural gas (LNG) in the near future. However, even advocates would
not claim that environmental impacts are none existent, given the scale of
activity. For example, the Marcellus Shale has
been found to be underneath Pennsylvania for centuries, but the extraction of
natural gas began only recently. The "fracking" boom is changing the
landscape of northeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania. 5
However, there are Limitations for natural Gas
to consider, such as the Arab oil embargo like geopolitics, the current
economies with their volatile prices, the climate concerns, as well as the storing
and transportation of Natural Gas that would eventually require the use
pipelines, which can be complicating.
Throughout
history, coal has been used as an energy resource, primarily burned for the
production of electricity and/or heat, and is also used for industrial
purposes, such as refining metals. As a result Coal is considered to have been the
power source of the Industrial Revolution, and the spring of the Machine Age.
However, in this day and age of being “green”, it has become the symbol of the “blackened
excesses of a bygone era”, one whose toxic results still follow us today in the
West, and we witness the rise of in the East. 1
There is an advantage to it however, as the
author mentions “there is no fuel on Earth so abundant, reliable and affordable
then coal, fitting the three preconditions for energy security. It accounts for a quarter of global energy
supply and 85% of coal use is domestic, which gives nations a reliance on their
own reserves.”1
In conclusion, according to Scott L.
Montgomery, The earth still contains vast recoverable reserves of fossil fuels,
anywhere from 12 to 20 trillion barrels of oil, approximetly 6,000 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas (possibly triple this with new technologies), and
nearly one trillion tons of coal. The main issue, however, is that these riches
are unevenly distributed, dynamic, increasingly marginal and costly to recover.
Montgomery cautions people not to presume
renewables to displace the current energy order anytime soon, since the vast
majority of the energy human beings consume, which is typically found to be approximately
80%, is mainly in the form of fossil fuels. This state of mind cannot quickly
be changed while maintaining our industrial civilization in the lifestyle to
which it has become accustomed.
Great Debate: Are we really
heading into an era of resource depletion?
Natural
Resource Limited
Pessimists:
The world is thoroughly explored and remaining reserves are
now known with some certainty, so there is little chance for any large
additions. Based on M. King Hubbert’s peak oil theory, when the maximum rate of
petroleum extraction is reached, the rate of production is expected to enter
terminal decline.
The current numbers of resource shouldn’t be treated as a
final guide. According to the most recent global analysis, remaining
recoverable reserves are on the order of 2.2 trillion bbls, 650 billion not yet
discovered and 612 billion can be added by improved technology. We don’t know
if this number will keep increasing.
More
Consumption
Pessimists:
As an increasingly population bump, resources are rapidly
consuming. The global peak in oil discoveries came in the 1960s, and we have
since been finding less while consuming more, so a reckoning is due.
The use of fossil fuel can be controlled by the country.
Major consuming nations like China and US have put out several policies to
control the consumption through taxes, fuel efficiency standards and so on. As
what I said before, 612 billion can be added to the reserves by improved
technology. With the development of technology, the production may increase
significantly. The increasing population may ask for more energy, however we
can also produce more energy.
The
Immutable Production of Resources
Pessimists:
The optimists always tends to ignore or overly downplay two
key factors (the rate and content of global depletion). Resources’ production
follow a set pattern that depends on “the immutable physics of reservoirs”.
1
The production of fossil energy not just follow a fixed
pattern, it can be affected by many factors. There is a tight relationship
between energy production and economic, policy and even world circumstance. For example, the production of fossil energy
by Iraq quickly fell by 60% after hostilities with Iran began in 1980. And then
the rate of production recovered to 3 million bbls/day, even higher than
before.
Resource
Consume Related to Economic Development
Pessimists:
Most of the developing countries need numerous resources to
promote economic growth. As resources decreasing, the price of everything would
have been much higher---abundance had increased, just as predicted, but demand
roared ahead still more.
Developed countries can help developing countries to build
more efficient factory and apply advanced technology in producing fossil fuels.
These may help to reduce the energy consumption of developing countries. Thanks
to the development of technology, hydrogen energy, nuclear energy and solar
power have been put into use, which may solve the problem of high consumption.
Government
Policy
Pessimists:
Every country has its own policy to protect the resources
belong to its region and may not willing to share the energy whatever they
need.
Optimists:
Even though most countries may have some self-protected
policies, the energy crisis will bind all the countries together to overcome
the problem.
In Classroom Discussion:
Are we
really heading into an era of resource depletion?
Optimists:
If an era means a hundred years, we may not believe that we
will run out of resource. Because new reserves are emerging and the current
number of reserves is still large. In another words, we have abundance of
energy resource to support our daily use for the future one hundred years or
few hundred years.
Pessimists:
Generally, an era means a hundred years. Here by depletion,
we are not saying about running out of energy but a trend of running out like
government may put out several policies to limit the use of electricity and
gasoline. These may make people feel that we don’t have enough energy for our
daily use. That’s the depletion we mentioned.
The
number of reserves
The current number of reserves can’t be treated as a future
guide. Because there is no way for us to know the accurate number of reserves.
New oil and gas deposit keep emerging. According to the most recent global
analysis, remaining recoverable reserves are on the order of 2.2 trillion bbls,
650 billion not yet discovered. We have no idea about how much fuel resource we
have on earth.
Getting
rid of the dependence of fossil fuel
Pessimists:
We have use fossil fuel for so many years. Most of our
facilities are designed to fit the application of fossil fuel. Even though we
have found other energy source like solar power, wind power and nuclear, we
can’t transform the model of our energy use to that in a short time. Because
it’s a huge amount of money we need to improve and rebuild all the facilities around
the world to fit the new energy application. And also, there is a tight
relationship between our economic and fossil fuel. It not only provide us
energy, but also job opportunities and captive products. That means we may not
be able to get rid of the dependence of fossil fuel in a short time like a
hundred years or so. However, it may happen someday in the future.
Optimists:
Actually, people are trying to get rid of the dependence of
fossil fuel. In the recent years, the combination of fossil fuel and other
renewable energy is applied in more and more area. Electricity, hydrogen power
and alcohol is combined with gasoline to power the car. Solar power, wind power
and nuclear power are being applied to generate electricity. Numbers of
renewable energies keep emerging. They are replacing fossil fuels at a faster
speed. According to the recent analysis of the usage of each kind of energy of
US, the portion of renewable energy is keep increasing. It is possible that the
renewable energy will replace fossil fuel in the recent future.
There is no doubt of the emerging of renewable energy.
However, it is not possible for us to totally get rid of the dependence of
fossil fuel. Because all the facilities we need to apply or generate renewable
energy, like wind plant, solar panel, are need to be produced at the cost of
fossil fuel, which means renewable energy can just replace part of the
application of fossil energy. The current pattern of energy us can be treated
as a kind of transition. There must be someday we can find a new energy which
can totally replace fossil energy.
The
energy impact on environment
Pessimists:
We should consider more about the environment related to
mining and the use of fossil fuel rather than the depletion of energy resource.
Because new reserves are discovered each year, there is no sign indicate that
the energy resource will running out. Even for the current number of reserves,
it may take hundreds of years to use up all of these energy. With the help of
the combination of renewable energy, the time may be longer than we predicted.
The only reason why we are feeling like running out of energy is because the
production can be affect by many factors like economic, policy and even world
circumstance. In another words, we should put more attention on environment
impact of the current pattern of energy use. The emission of green-house gas
cause the global warming; mining activity change the structure of underground
cause earthquake; uncountable pollutions and wastes are emitted in to the
environment. Energy related issues are threatening our health, our life and
even our next generation. Finally, what makes us to change the pattern of
energy is not the lack of energy but the hazard we are faced with related to
the use of fossil fuel.
Now most of pollution are treated before emitted into the
environment, which means we are trying to reduce the impact on environment as
much as we can at least for the developed countries. Developing countries may
contribute more to the pollution. However, they have their rights to develop
their own country and go for better life. This is a stage most of developed
countries have ever been. Take Pittsburgh, the city we are living in, as an
example, there was severe pollution in the city while we finally recover the
environment. The pollution is temporary.
Pessimists:
It takes a really long time like a hundred years or so for
Pittsburgh to transform from a polluted city to what it is now. There are so
many developing countries in the world. The current situation of our
environment doesn’t allow us to wait for another hundred years. Pollution is
not something just stay at one place, it can cause global impact. We need to
pay effort to change the trend of pollution.
Optimists:
Developed countries may help developing countries to solve
the problem of pollution and energy production. With the help of advanced
technologies, we can make a better world.
Conclusion
The current number of reserves can’t be treated as a future
guide. The reserves of energy is still abundant. Even though transforming the
pattern of energy use may cost a huge amount of money and even cause some
social problems, we will do it and have to do it. The environment force us to
make the choice. We may not able to totally get rid of fossil fuel by now or in
the recent future, while we can treat this period as a stage of transmission.
Countries all over the world should work together and help each other to
overcome this period and solve the problem of energy related environmental impact.
With the development of technology, there will be someday in the future we can
find out a new energy to totally replace fossil fuel or figure out a way to
solve all of these energy problems.
1. Montgomery, Scott L. The Powers That Be: Global Energy
for the Twenty-first Century and beyond. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2010.
Kindle File.
2. Kuhn, Mazimilian, and Frank Umbach. "The Triple
"A" Argument for Natural Gas." International Association
ForEnergy Economics (2012): 34-38. Web. 18 June 2014.
3. "Green Books." Green
Books RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 June 2014.
4. "1973 Oil Crisis." Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Foundation, 30 June 2014. Web. 01 July 2014.
5. Eisler, Matthew N. "Running on Empty." Running
on Empty | Chemical Heritage Foundation. Chemical Heritage Foundation, n.d.
Web. 02 July 2014.
.JPG)
