(On April 4 the Swedish newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning published this article in Swedish (read it in Swedish). Michael Lardelli has translated it to English.)
The world’s wealthiest nations, the G20 group, have decided to light a fire but have forgotten a very important detail – to check whether there is sufficient fuel to enable the fire to burn. Historically we have never had global economic growth without a simultaneous increase in the use of energy. This means, primarily, an increase in the use of fossil fuels. For a few nations – China, USA, Russia, India, Australia and South Africa – coal is a very important fuel. However, the most important fuel for the world economy is oil. All nations of the world use oil.
When the economies of different nations are compared, one usually compares their GDP(PPP), Gross Domestic Product (Purchasing Power Parity) per capita. If one furthermore compares how much oil nations use one can see that, since the Second World War, all nations have had to increase their oil use to get economic growth. If we compare how much oil is needed per 1000 dollar GDP (PPP) per person we get a suitable figure for comparison. The amount of oil different nations use varies. In 1980 Sweden, together with the USA, was the worst in the world since we needed the most oil. Nuclear energy and increased use of biofuels have helped us in Sweden to improve but we are still not as good as, for example, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
.preview.jpg)
During the last 20 years we have had global economic growth of approximately 3% per annum. Fuel use in the form of oil has increased, on average, by half of this rate, i.e. 1.5% per annum. In the future prognoses made by the International Energy Agency, IEA, they believe that we can increase our efficiency of fuel use but we will still need more oil. The documents that resulted from the G20 meeting assume that this fuel will exist to allow future global growth.
To get an appreciation of the scale of the task we can examine the economic growth that the world experienced from 2003 until 2007. In 2003 oil consumption was 77 million barrels per day and in 2007 it was around 85 million barrels per day, i.e. an increase of 10 percent. At the moment consumption is around 84 million barrels per day. If the stimulus package that the G20 group decided on is to generate the same amount of growth as seen in the 2003 to 2007 period then we will need an increase of 8 to 9 million barrels per day during the next 5 years. Such an increase is not possible.
The Global Energy Systems group at Uppsala University has just published an article in the scientific journal Energy Policy (see article) in which we show that oil production from those fields that are currently in production will decrease by 6 percent per year during the next 5 years. This means a decrease in the rate of production by 18 million barrels per day after 5 years. The G20 nations want to increase oil use but the forces of Nature say that there will be a decrease. For the G20 nations to get what they want the world’s oil industry would need to bring online new production of 25 million barrels per day over the next 5 years.
The USA-based company CERA has studied all the projects that the oil industry currently plans to bring online in the coming years. Last summer they arrived at an optimistic estimate that saw 14 million barrels per day of new production. One week ago they revised this increase downwards by 7.6 million barrels per day since companies are now postponing projects.
The same nations that now require increased oil consumption will meet in December with the world’s other nations in Copenhagen. They will then discuss what measures they can take to reduce oil consumption. They do not discuss what volumes of renewable energy will be needed but we have made an initial preliminary estimate and we find that 30 million barrels of oil per day must be replaced with renewable fuels and electricity by 2030 to keep a GDP(PPP) growth rate of 3 percent. What the G20 group should discuss is what investments will be required for this transformation of the energy system to become reality.
Kjell Aleklett, Professor of Physics
Global Energy Systems, Uppsala University, www.fysast.uu.se/ges
President of ASPO International, the International Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, www.peakoil.net
Mobile: +70 425 0604
Email: kjell.aleklett@fysast.uu.se
Dear Professor Kjell Aleklett,
In 2004, geologist Colin Campbell (retired — Texaco, British Petroleum, Amoco) cautioned:
“Throughout history, people have had difficulty in distinguishing reality from illusion. Reality is what happens, whereas illusion is what we would like to happen. Wishful thinking is a well-worn expression. Momentum is still another element: we tend to assume that things keep moving in the same direction. The world now faces a discontinuity of historic proportions, as nature shows her hand by imposing a new energy reality. There are vested interests on all sides hoping somehow to evade the iron grip of oil depletion, or at least to put it off until after the next election or until they can develop some strategy for their personal or corporate survival. As the moment of truth approaches, so does the heat, the deceptions, the half-truth and the flat lies.”
You have explained and documented clearly why the G20 global recovery plan is an illusion.
You conclude that: “What the G20 group should discuss is what investments will be required for this transformation of the energy system [what volumes of renewable fuels and energies]to become reality.”
I agree, that should be a point of discussion. I have reviewed the scientific studies of alternative energies and conclude that alternative energies will not fill the gap in declining oil supplies. The main problem is that electric power cannot replace liquid fuels for tractors/combines, trucks, trains, and ships. Alternatives will use up much fossil energy and give us electric power, which is not what is needed, especially as plazas, offices and factories close. I have a very long explanation that would use up many pages of your blog. To avoid this, I direct you to my 48 page report in the latter sections on alternative energies and conclusions: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Also see this article by Chris Shaw: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5964
Alternative/reneable energies are a myth, an illusion. At one point in history, people thought the earth was flat. At another time in history, people believed in renewable energy. Both are illusions.
Thanks for writing this article, which I put on my blog: http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/2009/04/peak-oil-planning-g20-global-plan-for.html
Warm regards,
Cliff Wirth
Does economic growth require growth in use of oil, or does it allow more use of oil? Do you need oil to get money, or does having more money let you burn more oil?
Surely economic growth of 3% with oil use growth of 1.5% suggests that, even if the oil use enables economic growth, over time less and less growth is due to oil, and more to other things? Oil and growth are becoming decoupled?
(This reply was by misstake deleted)
Perhaps then we need to decrease the global economy in a controlled way? Focus on and use resources for what is really really necessary. Like food and water.
As global oil production declines, oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. and Europe. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. and Europe represent less than half of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. and Europe will not slow oil depletion rates significantly. There is no mechanism for global oil conservation. And soon, most declining supplies will be used just for food production, heating, and necessary transportation.
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, water supply, waste water treatment, and automated building systems. This will happen at anytime now to at most 20 years from now, but it will start in 5 years. Who knows exactly when?
When I read the National Academy of Sciences study “Energy in Transition 1985-2010″
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771
in 1982, I knew it was too late to make a transition and that their was no transition to make, and some of the NAS panel members knew that too, see Kenneth Boulding’s comment: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=613
I focus my Peak Oil efforts on explaining how people can survive Peak Oil; that is what my blog is about. And I have found a nice place to survive, and I invite others here to live here as well. I don’t sell land here and I don’t charge money. There is lots of room left on the life boats of the global Titanic. clifford.wirth@yahoo.com for more information.
Warm regards,
Cliff Wirth
Force reduction of gas in our vehicle transports by EU demands or better – CO2 to 100-130 g/km. Go on search for oil, for example allow Ost See in Swedish area where 20 years of swedish consumption can be explored. Try to break the link between GDP growth and energy consumption. Start to develope new ideas of low energy society by structural changes in consumption – double life cycle for consumer goods, decentralize food production/distribution, make housing and transports low energy based, use IT better to increase productivity. Define new index for GDP which is measurable and inspires to better development. Arrange a new Lindbeck Commission to work out and govern the transition.
They really dont care whether there is enough oil or not. They just want the power. Once they have the power, they dont need the oil because they can just kill off a bunch of people until there is enough oil. How do you think the first Great Depression ended? This is the policy our wonderful occult-loving leaders have been following for the last 40 years at least.
OK let’s see 30 million barrel per day = 5.1E10 kWh/day. If we get (for PV) five good hours of sunlight per day we need 1E10kW for five hours = 1E13 watts for five hours. Not taking into account night time storage or distribution all we need to know is the cost per watt for PV. Current residential rate is 8 $/watt installed. But let’s be optimistic and say that the HUGE economy of scale will allow us a cost of 0.8 $/watt. So we have a total cost of 8 trillion dollars not bad considering we just spent 12.8 trillion dollars on the banks in the last six months.
[...] Read the full article here.. [...]
I follow your blog for a long time and must tell that your posts always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
I bookmarked this page. I really like your site. I’ll bookmark the other pages when I have time
I would love to write and say what a great job you did on this, as you have put a lot of work into it.