Page added on October 5, 2011
A recent comment from a frequent reader got me thinking about the good news that has accumulated on the energy front, even as the rest of the economy has bogged down in pessimism. There’s actually quite a lot of it, though perhaps it has been easy to miss, because most of these developments look like bad news from someone’s perspective, as organizations and social-media-empowered individuals seek to outdo each other in the hunt for negative ramifications and unintended consequences. Recognizing the positive aspects of such nuggets as shale gas and its recent extension into shale oil, along with factors like the plummeting price of solar panels that contributed to the Solyndra debacle, requires stepping back to view them through the lens of the big energy problems that have plagued us for decades.
As recently as a few years ago, it was widely assumed that the US was running short of both oil and natural gas. Domestic oil production was declining steadily, as it had been since the mid-1980s, even as US oil consumption kept rising. The result was a wedge of oil and petroleum product imports that seemed likely to widen indefinitely. Moreover, US natural gas production appeared destined for the same outcome, as non-associated gas fields in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico declined faster than expected, and diminishing oil production slowed associated gas output. The combination of these trends made energy security a priority concern again, after more than a decade of complacency.
The turnaround in these trends has been nothing short of astonishing. Last week the Houston Chronicle published an article with the headline, “N. American oil output could top 40-year old peak“, accompanied by a graph showing a clear inflection point in 2008–not by coincidence about five years after oil prices began theirclimb from the $20s to a peak just shy of $150 per barrel. Motivation plus investment equals production, after an inherent time lag. But what’s really changed is that those investments weren’t just going into more of the same onshore conventional oil fields that had been declining; they were going into deepwater drilling, oil sands extraction, and lately into the application of shale gas drilling techniques to similar deposits of shale oil that weren’t in anyone’s reserves just a few years ago, because no one knew how to tap them effectively and economically.
The latter provides a fascinating example of innovation, today’s hot buzzword. Drillers have been hydraulically fracturing oil wells since the late 1940s–about a million of them–and horizontal drilling has been around for more than a decade, too. Combining these techniques, along with modern seismic visualization, has unlocked what looks like a century’s worth of natural gas supplies. But if this weren’t enough of a game-changer, setting up gas-fired power plants as both a replacement for coal and as the on-demand backup for intermittent renewables like wind and solar, some smart folks realized that the same combination of techniques could produce oil from other shale deposits. Suddenly fields like North Dakota’s Williston Basin (the Bakken formation) and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas are counted among the largest oil fields in the country, with billions of barrels of potential reserves and production in the hundreds of thousands of barrels per day.
When we look at these successes and recognize that some of the most prospective US oil resources remain locked away behind actual and virtual drilling bans, the mantra that we can’t drill our way to energy independence at least merits a serious reassessment. But what’s even better about these recent energy revolutions is that they aren’t occurring in a 1970s’ context in which all this extra oil and natural gas would merely be burned in gas-guzzling cars and inefficient power plants. Instead, they coincide with impressive advances in fuel efficiency, in which muscle cars like the Camaro and Mustang can get at least 30 miles per gallon on the highway, while true economy cars get over 50 mpg today. Meanwhile, we’ve squeezed almost all the petroleum out of the utility sector, with just 0.9% of US power generation last year coming from oil-based fuels, while nearly 54% came from lower-emission sources such as gas, nuclear and renewables. These trends are moving in the right direction, too.
Renewables have also come a long way since solar cells were niche or novelty items and the economics of wind power only appealed to wealthy taxpayers seeking write-offs against marginal tax rates of up to 70%. Notwithstanding the struggles of individual firms like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, global photovoltaic (PV) generating capacity grew by 74% last year to 40,000 MW, roughly where wind power was in 2003, if you ignore how much of the former has been installed in places with miserably poor solar resources. Wind power is still cheaper than solar power, but solar looks much more useful in the long run, because its output is more predictable and better aligned with demand. Both remain more expensive than conventional energy sources, though the gap is narrowing, especially for solar, and without cheap and abundant natural gas from shale resources it might not exist at all in some markets. Together with a resurgent geothermal energy sector, these renewables could soon survive with little or no subsidies by concentrating on regions with the best combinations of resources and transmission-accessible markets. (Germany would have installed its last solar panel in that scenario.) That wasn’t an option just a decade ago.
The greatest contribution the energy sector can make is providing affordable and reliable inputs for the rest of the economy. Building on the developments above it should be possible to craft cost-effective energy policies to improve US energy security significantly and greatly reduce the leverage of the sources of our imported oil, including OPEC as a whole. At the same time we could move the electricity sector, which never really had an energy security problem but remains the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions, towards much lower emissions without breaking the bank. Those outcomes seem attainable, if we can moderate our impulses to treat energy policy as a piggy bank for patronage or a laboratory for industrial policy. In that respect, energy just might be the most solvable of all our big problems.
7 Comments on "The Energy Glass Is More Than Half Full"
pike on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 5:40 am
Renewable have come a long way despite USA efforts to the oppressive.
Look out world here comes china.
BillT on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 5:42 am
Still a lot of BS and dreaming. There may be an ocean of oil and natural gas, but…EROEI still decides how much we can access. When the environmental costs of fraking are known and become more and more obvious, there will be less and less fraking. When the Canadian tar sands max out their water supply, that too will come to an end or at least limits.
After all, there are many countries running out of fresh water but border on the oceans of the world. Plenty of water, just not available because of EROEI. The energy required is not available or too expensive.
Same with the shale dreams of the deniers…the cost will prevent most of it from being accessed.
J.J.H on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 6:48 am
I think that shale oil and are in some ways gas is overestimated. The flow rates of shale gas are in the beginning high but so is the rate of decline. The potential isn’t as big as thought. This will lead the need fore more and more drilling and fraking as the US dependence of (shale) gas will get higher year over year. This is not sustainable even when it looks as promising as it does at this moment or did. The first signs are there as can been read in the article “Marcellus Shale Reserves “Only” 43 TCF” september 22 2011.
I truly believe that this is not the way to go. I my opinion, we need to diversify our energy mix. Shale (oil) and gas is a short or even mid temp solution, not the solution to the energy problems or the energy independence of the US. A major shift to renewables like, wind and bio gas will be one part of the solution but even more is the act of conservation. Example European house hold: 3500 kwh and a US household 9000 kwh.
DC on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 6:42 pm
What good news is there on the energy front exazctly, more importantly good for who? For frakers, certainly. For everyone else, not so good. Fraking, tar-sands, so-called shale, all of them are enviromental train wrecks, and expensive ones at that. If they are produceing a glut or surplus, that is only transient condition, as the on-going recession means less companies and individuals have money to burn, on energy that is. Any surpluses that happen to exsist now, will not remain, as the US and Canada are commited to increasing the population, even as the economy keeps shrinking. People still need a certain amont of energy in car-dependant NA so I tend to agree that things look ‘good’ for energy companies, but thats really because things have *always* looked good in the rigged game that is the world-wide energy market.
Harquebus on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 11:03 pm
People who promote renewable energy have no idea about the laws of thermodymanics which, state that the perpetual energy dreamed up by these morons just can not exist.
The sun’s energy is so diffuse that, the energy used to manufacture ineffient solar and wind energy generators will always be greater than that returned.
zoli on Thu, 6th Oct 2011 11:57 pm
Author acuses some of overlooking newest positive developments. He seems to have overlooked some recent developments himself. One such development is the downgrade of reserves in the largest shale gas play the Marcellus, by the USGS. It turns out that the 400 tcf, that many claimed in order to make up that century worth of gas claim turned into 80 tcf instead. That is still a lot of gas, but if the rest of the shale gas plays will go the same way, it will be more like 25 years worth of potential gas, not a century.
Kenz300 on Sun, 9th Oct 2011 8:01 pm
Global photovoltaic (PV) generating capacity grew by 74% last year to 40,000 MW —- The price for solar keeps dropping year after year with increases in research and development and greater economies of scale. It is time to diversify our energy sources.