Energy security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_security 

 

A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet displaying an "Energy Security" logo.

Energy security is the association between national security and the availability of natural resources for energy consumption. Access to (relatively) cheap energy has become essential to the functioning of modern economies. However, the uneven distribution of energy supplies among countries has led to significant vulnerabilities. International energy relations have contributed to the globalization of the world leading to energy security and energy vulnerability at the same time.

In the context of energy security, security of energy supply is an issue of utmost importance. Moreover, it is time to define "a global energy policy model, which not only aims at ensuring an efficient environmental protection but also at ensuring security of energy supply".

Renewable resources and significant opportunities for energy efficiency and transitions exist over wide geographical areas, in contrast to other energy sources, which are concentrated in a limited number of countries. Rapid deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and technological diversification of energy sources, would result in significant energy security and economic benefits.

Threats

The modern world relies on a vast energy supply to fuel everything from transportation to communication, to security and health delivery systems. Perhaps most alarmingly, peak oil expert Michael Ruppert has claimed that for every calorie of food produced in the industrial world, ten calories of oil and gas energy are invested in the forms of fertilizer, pesticide, packaging, transportation, and running farm equipment. Energy plays an important role in the national security of any given country as a fuel to power the economic engine. Some sectors rely on energy more heavily than others; for example, the Department of Defense relies on petroleum for approximately 77% of its energy needs. Threats to energy security include the political instability of several energy producing countries, the manipulation of energy supplies, the competition over energy sources, attacks on supply infrastructure, as well as accidents, natural disasters, terrorism, and reliance on foreign countries for oil.

Foreign oil supplies are vulnerable to unnatural disruptions from in-state conflict, exporters' interests, and non-state actors targeting the supply and transportation of oil resources. The political and economic instability caused by war or other factors such as strike action can also prevent the proper functioning of the energy industry in a supplier country. For example, the nationalization of oil in Venezuela has triggered strikes and protests in which Venezuela's oil production rates have yet to recover. Exporters may have political or economic incentive to limit their foreign sales or cause disruptions in the supply chain. Since Venezuela's nationalization of oil, anti-American Hugo Chávez threatened to cut off supplies to the United States more than once. The 1973 oil embargo against the United States is a historical example in which oil supplies were cut off to the United States due to U.S. support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This has been done to apply pressure during economic negotiations—such as during the 2007 Russia–Belarus energy dispute. Terrorist attacks targeting oil facilities, pipelines, tankers, refineries, and oil fields are so common they are referred to as "industry risks". Infrastructure for producing the resource is extremely vulnerable to sabotage. One of the worst risks to oil transportation is the exposure of the five ocean chokepoints, like the Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz. Anthony Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., warns, "It may take only one asymmetric or conventional attack on a Ghawar Saudi oil field or tankers in the Strait of Hormuz to throw the market into a spiral."

New threats to energy security have emerged in the form of the increased world competition for energy resources due to the increased pace of industrialization in countries such as India and China, as well as due to the increasing consequences of climate change. Although still a minority concern, the possibility of price rises resulting from the peaking of world oil production is also starting to attract the attention of at least the French government. Increased competition over energy resources may also lead to the formation of security compacts to enable an equitable distribution of oil and gas between major powers. However, this may happen at the expense of less developed economies. The Group of Five, precursors to the G8, first met in 1975 to coordinate economic and energy policies in the wake of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, a rise in inflation and a global economic slowdown. NATO leaders meeting in Bucharest Romania, in April 2008, may discuss the possibility of using the military alliance "as an instrument of energy security". One of the possibilities include placing troops in the Caucasus region to police oil and gas pipelines.

Long-term security

Long-term measures to increase energy security center on reducing dependence on any one source of imported energy, increasing the number of suppliers, exploiting native fossil fuel or renewable energy resources, and reducing overall demand through energy conservation measures. It can also involve entering into international agreements to underpin international energy trading relationships, such as the Energy Charter Treaty in Europe. All the concern coming from security threats on oil sources long term security measures will help reduce the future cost of importing and exporting fuel into and out of countries without having to worry about harm coming to the goods being transported.

The impact of the 1973 oil crisis and the emergence of the OPEC cartel was a particular milestone that prompted some countries to increase their energy security. Japan, almost totally dependent on imported oil, steadily introduced the use of natural gas, nuclear power, high-speed mass transit systems, and implemented energy conservation measures. The United Kingdom began exploiting North Sea oil and gas reserves, and became a net exporter of energy into the 2000s.

In other countries energy security has historically been a lower priority. The United States, for example, has continued to increase its dependency on imported oil although, following the oil price increases since 2003, the development of biofuels has been suggested as a means of addressing this.

Increasing energy security is also one of the reasons behind a block on the development of natural gas imports in Sweden. Greater investment in native renewable energy technologies and energy conservation is envisaged instead. India is carrying out a major hunt for domestic oil to decrease its dependency on OPEC, while Iceland is well advanced in its plans to become energy independent by 2050 through deploying 100% renewable energy.

Short-term security

Petroleum

A map of world oil reserves according to OPEC, 2013

Petroleum, otherwise known as "crude oil", has become the resource most used by countries all around the world including Russia, China (actually, China is mostly dependent on coal (70.5% in 2010)) and the United States of America. With all the oil wells located around the world energy security has become a main issue to ensure the safety of the petroleum that is being harvested. In the middle east oil fields become main targets for sabotage because of how heavily countries rely on oil. Many countries hold strategic petroleum reserves as a buffer against the economic and political impacts of an energy crisis. All 28 members of the International Energy Agency hold a minimum of 90 days of their oil imports, for example.

The value of such reserves was demonstrated by the relative lack of disruption caused by the 2007 Russia-Belarus energy dispute, when Russia indirectly cut exports to several countries in the European Union.

Due to the theories in peak oil and need to curb demand, the United States military and Department of Defense had made significant cuts, and have been making a number of attempts to come up with more efficient ways to use oil.

Natural gas

Countries by natural gas proven reserves, based on data from The World Factbook, 2014

Compared to petroleum, reliance on imported natural gas creates significant short-term vulnerabilities. The gas conflicts between Ukraine and Russia of 2006 and 2009 serve as vivid examples of this. Many European countries saw an immediate drop in supply when Russian gas supplies were halted during the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute in 2006.

Natural gas has been a viable source of energy in the world. Consisting of mostly methane, natural gas is produced using two methods: biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas comes from methanogenic organisms located in marshes and landfills, whereas thermogenic gas comes from the anaerobic decay of organic matter deep under the Earth's surface. Russia is the current leading country in production of natural gas.

One of the biggest problems currently facing natural gas providers is the ability to store and transport it. With its low density, it is difficult to build enough pipelines in North America to transport sufficient natural gas to match demand. These pipelines are reaching near capacity and even at full capacity do not produce the amount of gas needed.

Nuclear power

Sources of uranium delivered to EU utilities in 2007, from the 2007 Annual report of the Euratom Supply Agency

Uranium for nuclear power is mined and enriched in diverse and "stable" countries. These include Canada (23% of the world's total in 2007), Australia (21%), Kazakhstan (16%) and more than 10 other countries. Uranium is mined and fuel is manufactured significantly in advance of need. Nuclear fuel is considered by some to be a relatively reliable power source, being more common in the Earth's crust than tin, mercury or silver, though a debate over the timing of peak uranium does exist.

Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions. Although a very viable resource, nuclear power can be a controversial solution because of the risks associated with it. Another factor in the debate with nuclear power is that many people or companies simply do not want any nuclear energy plant or radioactive waste near them.

Currently, nuclear power provides 13% of the world's total electricity. The most notable use of nuclear power within the United States is in U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and submarines, which have been exclusively nuclear-powered for several decades. These classes of ship provide the core of the Navy's power, and as such are the single most noteworthy application of nuclear power in that country.

Renewable energy

The deployment of renewable technologies usually increases the diversity of electricity sources and, through local generation, contributes to the flexibility of the system and its resistance to central shocks. For those countries where growing dependence on imported gas is a significant energy security issue, renewable technologies can provide alternative sources of electric power as well as displacing electricity demand through direct heat production. Renewable biofuels for transport represent a key source of diversification from petroleum products.

As the resources that have been so crucial to survival in the world to this day start declining in numbers, countries will begin to realize that the need for renewable fuel sources will be as vital as ever. With the production of new types of energy, including solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, biofuel, and wind power. With the amount of solar energy that hits the world in one hour there is enough energy to power the world for one year. With the addition of solar panels all around the world a little less pressure is taken off the need to produce more oil.

Geothermal can potentially lead to other sources of fuel, if companies would take the heat from the inner core of the earth to heat up water sources we could essentially use the steam creating from the heated water to power machines, this option is one of the cleanest and efficient options. Hydro-electric which has been incorporated into many of the dams around the world, produces a lot of energy, and is very easy to produce the energy as the dams control the water that is allowed through seams which power turbines located inside of the dam. Biofuels have been researched using many different sources including ethanol and algae, these options are substantially cleaner than the consumption of petroleum. "Most life cycle analysis results for perennial and ligno-cellulosic crops conclude that biofuels can supplement anthropogenic energy demands and mitigate green house gas emissions to the atmosphere". Using oil to fuel transportation is a major source of green house gases, any one of these developments could replace the energy we derive from oil. Traditional fossil fuel exporters (e.g. Russia) struggle to diversify away from oil and develop renewable energy.

Clear Skies Act of 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005 

The Clear Skies Act of 2003 was a proposed federal law of the United States. The official title as introduced is "a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap-and-trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes."

The bill's Senate version (S. 485) was sponsored by James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma and George Voinovich (R) of Ohio; the House version (H.R. 999) was sponsored by Joe Barton (R) of Texas and Billy Tauzin (R) of Louisiana. Both versions were introduced on February 27, 2003.

Upon introduction of the bill, Inhofe said, "Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants." The Clear Skies Act came about as the result of President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative.

In early March 2005, the bill did not move out of committee when members were deadlocked 9-9. Seven Democrats, James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, and Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island voted against the bill; nine Republicans supported it. Within days, the Bush Administration moved to implement key measures, such as the NOx, SO₂ and mercury trading provisions of the bill administratively through EPA. It remains to be seen how resistant these changes will be to court challenges.

Background: The Clear Skies Initiative

On February 14, 2002 President George W. Bush announced the Clear Skies Initiative. The policy was put together by Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and involved the work of Senators Bob Smith and George Voinovich and Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton. The Initiative is based on a central idea: "that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies." The resulting proposal was a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. The Initiative would reduce the cost and complexity of compliance and the need for litigation.

Current power plant emissions amounted to 67% of all sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions (in the United States), 37% of mercury emissions, and 25% of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Only SO₂ has been administered under a cap-and-trade program.

The goals of the Initiative are threefold:

• Cut SO₂ emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
• Cut NO_x emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
• Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
• Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West.

Through the use of a market-based cap-and-trade program, the intent of the Initiative was to reward innovation, reduce costs, and guarantee results. Each power plant facility would be required to have a permit for each ton of pollution emitted. Because the permits are tradeable, companies would have a financial incentive to cut back their emissions using newer technologies.

The Initiative was modeled on the successful SO₂ emissions trading program in effect since 1995. According to the President, the program had reduced air pollution more than all other programs under the Clean Air Act of 1990 combined. Actual reductions were more than the law required and compliance was virtually 100% without the need for litigation. Also, he said that only a "handful" of employees were needed to administer the program. The total cost to achieve the reductions was about 80% less than had originally been expected.

Bush mentioned several benefits of the Initiative:

• Reduces respiratory and cardiovascular diseases by dramatically reducing smog, fine particles, and regional haze.
• Protects wildlife, habitats and ecosystem health from acid rain, nitrogen and mercury deposition.
• Cuts pollution further, faster, cheaper, and with more certainty—replacing a cycle of endless litigation with rapid and certain improvements in air quality.
• Saves as much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs that are passed along to consumers.
• Protects the reliability and affordability of electricity.
• Encourages use of new and cleaner pollution control technologies.

Competing proposals

In May 2004, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study comparing the Clear Skies Act with the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 (S. 843), introduced by Senator Thomas R. Carper, and the Clean Power Act of 2003 (S. 366), introduced by Senator James Jeffords.

The differences between the three bills are summarized as follows:

• Carbon dioxide emissions: While all three bills implement emissions targets on power sector emissions of NO_x, SO₂, and mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act and the Clean Power Act also call for limits on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Under the Clean Air Planning Act, greenhouse gas emission reductions outside of the power sector, referred to as offsets, can be used to meet the emission targets for CO₂.
• Size of generators covered: All three bills cover emissions from larger generators that generate power for sale, including central station generators and generators at customer sites that sell power they do not use for their own needs. The Clear Skies and Clean Air Planning Acts cover generating facilities 25 megawatts and larger, while the Clean Power Act covers facilities 15 megawatts and larger. The bills have differing provisions regarding the coverage of combined heat and power facilities that generate some power for sale.
• Emissions caps: The bills generally rely on emissions cap and trade programs to achieve the required reductions. Under such programs, allowances will be allocated and covered generators will have to submit one allowance for each unit of emissions they produce. However, for mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act combines a minimum removal target for all plants with an emissions cap, and the Clean Power Act specifies a maximum emissions rate for all facilities and allows no trading of mercury allowances. The Clear Skies Act contains a "safety valve" feature that caps the price that power companies would have to pay for mercury ($2,187.50 per ounce or $35,000 per pound), SO2 ($4,000 per ton), and NOx ($4,000 per ton) allowances. Should one or more of these "safety valves" be triggered, the corresponding cap on emissions would effectively be relaxed.
• Emissions allocation: Under the Clear Skies Act, emission allowances are to be allocated based on historical fuel consumption, what is often referred to as "grandfathering". Under the Clean Air Planning Act, a grandfathering approach is used to allocate emission allowances for SO₂, but allowances for NOx, mercury, and CO₂, are allocated using an output-based scheme. Under this approach, referred to as a generation performance standard (GPS), generators are given allowances for each unit of electricity they generate. The number of allowances allocated for each unit of generation changes each year as the total generation from covered sources changes. The use of a GPS dampens the electricity price impacts of the bill but raises overall compliance costs.
• Control technology: In addition to the emission caps, the Clean Power Act also requires that all plants have the best available control technology (BACT) beginning in 2014 or when they reach 40 years of age, whichever comes later. This provision, often referred to as a "birthday" provision, requires older plants to add controls even if the total emissions of covered facilities are below the emission caps.

Criticisms in opposition

The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

• Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
• Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
• Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
• Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO₂, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush Administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

In addition, some opponents consider the term, "Clear Skies Initiative" (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as "cover" for a give-away to business interests.

Arguments in favor

Proponents for the CSA argue that the Clean Air Act sets unachievable goals, especially for ozone and nitrogen oxide pollution. Having a clearly defined cap will benefit both industry and the general population because the goals are visible to everyone and industry benefits from cost-certainty. For example, the claim that simply enforcing the Clean Air Act will result in less pollution than the Clear Skies Act assumes that strict measures will be taken in heavily polluting areas, such as Los Angeles and other municipalities. Measures such as transportation control were taken in the 1970s but were withdrawn amid widespread public protest. Proponents of reform argue that a more likely result of following the current Clean Air Act is the continued 'muddling along' approach to environmental legislation, with most important decisions made in courts on a case-by-case basis after many years of litigation.

Carbon-neutral fuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel 

Carbon-neutral fuel is energy fuel or energy systems which have no net greenhouse gas emissions or carbon footprint. One class is synthetic fuel (including methane, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel or ammonia) produced from renewable, sustainable or nuclear energy used to hydrogenate carbon dioxide directly captured from the air (DAC), recycled from power plant flue exhaust gas or derived from carbonic acid in seawater. Renewable energy sources include wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric powerful power stations. Another type of renewable energy source is biofuel. Such fuels are potentially carbon-neutral because they do not result in a net increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

To the extent that carbon-neutral fuels displace fossil fuels, or if they are produced from waste carbon or seawater carbonic acid, and their combustion is subject to carbon capture at the flue or exhaust pipe, they result in negative carbon dioxide emission and net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, and thus constitute a form of greenhouse gas remediation.

Such power to gas carbon-neutral and carbon-negative fuels can be produced by the electrolysis of water to make hydrogen. Through the Sabatier reaction methane can then be produced which may then be stored to be burned later in power plants (as a synthetic natural gas), transported by pipeline, truck, or tanker ship, or be used in gas to liquids processes such as the Fischer–Tropsch process to make traditional fuels for transportation or heating.

Other carbon-negative fuels include synthetic fuels made from CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. Some companies are working on this.

Similar to regular biofuels, carbon-negative fuels only remain carbon-negative as long as the fuel is not combusted. Upon combustion, the carbon they contain (i.e. taken from industrial sources) is released again into the atmosphere (thus leveling out the environmental benefit). The time between fuel production and combustion of the fuel (the carbon storage time) can thus be quite short (far shorter than the 100 year storage time set for afforestation/reforestation projects under the Kyoto Protocol. or even underground carbon storage.

Carbon-neutral fuels are used in Germany and Iceland for distributed storage of renewable energy, minimizing problems of wind and solar intermittency, and enabling transmission of wind, water, and solar power through existing natural gas pipelines. Such renewable fuels could alleviate the costs and dependency issues of imported fossil fuels without requiring either electrification of the vehicle fleet or conversion to hydrogen or other fuels, enabling continued compatible and affordable vehicles. A 250 kilowatt synthetic methane plant has been built in Germany and it is being scaled up to 10 megawatts.

Carbon credits can also play an important role for carbon-negative fuels.

Production

Carbon-neutral fuels are synthetic hydrocarbons. They can be produced in chemical reactions between carbon dioxide, which can be captured from power plants or the air, and hydrogen, which is created by the electrolysis of water using renewable energy. The fuel, often referred to as electrofuel, stores the energy that was used in the production of the hydrogen. Coal can also be used to produce the hydrogen, but that would not be a carbon-neutral source. Carbon dioxide can be captured and buried, making fossil fuels carbon-neutral, although not renewable. Carbon capture from exhaust gas can make carbon-neutral fuels carbon negative. Other hydrocarbons can be broken down to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide which could then be stored while the hydrogen is used for energy or fuel, which would also be carbon-neutral.

The most energy-efficient fuel to produce is hydrogen gas, which can be used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and which requires the fewest process steps to produce.

There are a few more fuels that can be created using hydrogen. Formic acid for example can be made by reacting the hydrogen with CO2. Formic acid combined with CO2 can form isobutanol.

Methanol can be made from a chemical reaction of a carbon-dioxide molecule with three hydrogen molecules to produce methanol and water. The stored energy can be recovered by burning the methanol in a combustion engine, releasing carbon dioxide, water, and heat. Methane can be produced in a similar reaction. Special precautions against methane leaks are important since methane is nearly 100 times as potent as CO₂, in terms of Global warming potential. More energy can be used to combine methanol or methane into larger hydrocarbon fuel molecules.

Researchers have also suggested using methanol to produce dimethyl ether. This fuel could be used as a substitute for diesel fuel due to its ability to self ignite under high pressure and temperature. It is already being used in some areas for heating and energy generation. It is nontoxic, but must be stored under pressure. Larger hydrocarbons and ethanol can also be produced from carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

All synthetic hydrocarbons are generally produced at temperatures of 200–300 °C, and at pressures of 20 to 50 bar. Catalysts are usually used to improve the efficiency of the reaction and create the desired type of hydrocarbon fuel. Such reactions are exothermic and use about 3 mol of hydrogen per mole of carbon dioxide involved. They also produce large amounts of water as a byproduct.

Sources of carbon for recycling

The most economical source of carbon for recycling into fuel is flue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustion where it can be obtained for about US$7.50 per ton. However, this is not carbon-neutral, since the carbon is of fossil origin, therefore moving carbon from the geosphere to the atmosphere. Automobile exhaust gas capture has also been seen as economical but would require extensive design changes or retrofitting. Since carbonic acid in seawater is in chemical equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide, extraction of carbon from seawater has been studied. Researchers have estimated that carbon extraction from seawater would cost about $50 per ton. Carbon capture from ambient air is more costly, at between $94 and $232 per ton and is considered impractical for fuel synthesis or carbon sequestration. Direct air capture is less developed than other methods. Proposals for this method involve using a caustic chemical to react with carbon dioxide in the air to produce carbonates. These can then be broken down and hydrated to release pure CO₂ gas and regenerate the caustic chemical. This process requires more energy than other methods because carbon dioxide is at much lower concentrations in the atmosphere than in other sources.

Researchers have also suggested using biomass as a carbon source for fuel production. Adding hydrogen to the biomass would reduce its carbon to produce fuel. This method has the advantage of using plant matter to cheaply capture carbon dioxide. The plants also add some chemical energy to the fuel from biological molecules. This may be a more efficient use of biomass than conventional biofuel because it uses most of the carbon and chemical energy from the biomass instead of releasing as much energy and carbon. Its main disadvantage is, as with conventional ethanol production, it competes with food production.

Renewable and nuclear energy costs

Nighttime wind power is considered the most economical form of electrical power with which to synthesize fuel, because the load curve for electricity peaks sharply during the warmest hours of the day, but wind tends to blow slightly more at night than during the day. Therefore, the price of nighttime wind power is often much less expensive than any alternative. Off-peak wind power prices in high wind penetration areas of the U.S. averaged 1.64 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009, but only 0.71 cents/kWh during the least expensive six hours of the day. Typically, wholesale electricity costs 2 to 5 cents/kWh during the day. Commercial fuel synthesis companies suggest they can produce gasoline for less than petroleum fuels when oil costs more than $55 per barrel.

In 2010, a team of process chemists led by Heather Willauer of the U.S. Navy, estimates that 100 megawatts of electricity can produce 160 cubic metres (41,000 US gal) of jet fuel per day and shipboard production from nuclear power would cost about $1,600 per cubic metre ($6/US gal). While that was about twice the petroleum fuel cost in 2010, it is expected to be much less than the market price in less than five years if recent trends continue. Moreover, since the delivery of fuel to a carrier battle group costs about $2,100 per cubic metre ($8/US gal), shipboard production is already much less expensive.

Willauer said seawater is the "best option" for a source of synthetic jet fuel. By April 2014, Willauer's team had not yet made fuel to the standard required by military jets, but they were able in September 2013 to use the fuel to fly a radio-controlled model airplane powered by a common two-stroke internal combustion engine. Because the process requires a large input of electrical energy, a plausible first step of implementation would be for American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (the Nimitz-class and the Gerald R. Ford-class) to manufacture their own jet fuel. The U.S. Navy is expected to deploy the technology some time in the 2020s.

Demonstration projects and commercial development

A 250 kilowatt methane synthesis plant was constructed by the Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research (ZSW) at Baden-Württemberg and the Fraunhofer Society in Germany and began operating in 2010. It is being upgraded to 10 megawatts, scheduled for completion in autumn, 2012.

The George Olah carbon dioxide recycling plant operated by Carbon Recycling International in Grindavík, Iceland has been producing 2 million liters of methanol transportation fuel per year from flue exhaust of the Svartsengi Power Station since 2011. It has the capacity to produce 5 million liters per year.

Audi has constructed a carbon-neutral liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Werlte, Germany. The plant is intended to produce transportation fuel to offset LNG used in their A3 Sportback g-tron automobiles, and can keep 2,800 metric tons of CO₂ out of the environment per year at its initial capacity.

Commercial developments are taking place in Columbia, South Carolina, Camarillo, California, and Darlington, England. A demonstration project in Berkeley, California proposes synthesizing both fuels and food oils from recovered flue gases.

Greenhouse gas remediation

Carbon-neutral fuels can lead to greenhouse gas remediation because carbon dioxide gas would be reused to produce fuel instead of being released into the atmosphere. Capturing the carbon dioxide in flue gas emissions from power plants would eliminate their greenhouse gas emissions, although burning the fuel in vehicles would release that carbon because there is no economical way to capture those emissions. This approach would reduce net carbon dioxide emission by about 50% if it were used on all fossil fuel power plants. Most coal and natural gas power plants have been predicted to be economically retrofittable with carbon dioxide scrubbers for carbon capture to recycle flue exhaust or for carbon sequestration. Such recycling is expected to not only cost less than the excess economic impacts of climate change if it were not done, but also to pay for itself as global fuel demand growth and peak oil shortages increase the price of petroleum and fungible natural gas.

Capturing CO₂ directly from the air or extracting carbonic acid from seawater would also reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment, and create a closed cycle of carbon to eliminate new carbon dioxide emissions. Use of these methods would eliminate the need for fossil fuels entirely, assuming that enough renewable energy could be generated to produce the fuel. Using synthetic hydrocarbons to produce synthetic materials such as plastics could result in permanent sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere.

Technologies

Traditional fuels, methanol or ethanol

See also: Methanol economy

Some authorities have recommended producing methanol instead of traditional transportation fuels. It is a liquid at normal temperatures and can be toxic if ingested. Methanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline but a lower energy density, and can be mixed with other fuels or used on its own. It may also be used in the production of more complex hydrocarbons and polymers. Direct methanol fuel cells have been developed by Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to convert methanol and oxygen into electricity. It is possible to convert methanol into gasoline, jet fuel or other hydrocarbons, but that requires additional energy and more complex production facilities. Methanol is slightly more corrosive than traditional fuels, requiring automobile modifications on the order of US$100 each to use it.

In 2016, a method using carbon spikes, copper nanoparticles and nitrogen that converts carbon dioxide to ethanol was developed.

Microalgae

Microalgae is a potential carbon neutral fuel, but efforts to turn it into one have been unsuccessful so far. Microalgae are aquatic organisms living in a large and diverse group. They are unicellular organisms that do not have complex cell structures like plants. However, they are still photo autotrophic, able to use solar energy to convert chemical forms via photosynthesis. They are typically found in freshwater and marine system and there are approximately 50,000 species that has been found.

Microalgae will be a huge substitute for the needs of fuel in the era of global warming. Growing microalgae is important in supporting the global movement of reducing global CO₂ emissions. Microalgae has a better ability, compared to conventional biofuel crops, in acting as a CO₂fixation source as they convert CO₂ into biomass via photosynthesis at higher rates. Microalgae is a better CO₂ converter than conventional biofuel crops.

With that being said, a considerable interest to cultivate microalgae has been increasing in the past several years. Microalgae is seen as a potential feedstock for biofuel production as their ability to produce polysaccharides and triglycerides (sugars and fats) which are both raw materials for bioethanol and biodiesel fuel. Microalgae also can be used as a livestock feed due to their proteins. Even more, some species of microalgae produce valuable compounds such as pigments and pharmaceuticals.

Production

Two main ways of cultivating microalgae are raceway pond systems and photo-bioreactors. Raceway pond systems are constructed by a closed loop oval channel that has a paddle wheel to circulate water and prevent sedimentation. The channel is open to the air and its depth is in the range of 0.25–0.4 m (0.82–1.31 ft). The pond needs to be kept shallow since self-shading and optical absorption can cause the limitation of light penetration through the solution of algae broth. PBRs's culture medium is constructed by closed transparent array of tubes. It has a central reservoir which circulated the microalgae broth. PBRs is an easier system to be controlled compare to the raceway pond system, yet it costs a larger overall production expenses.

The carbon emissions from microalgae biomass produced in raceway ponds could be compared to the emissions from conventional biodiesel by having inputs of energy and nutrients as carbon intensive. The corresponding emissions from microalgae biomass produced in PBRs could also be compared and might even exceed the emissions from conventional fossil diesel. The inefficiency is due to the amount of electricity used to pump the algae broth around the system. Using co-product to generate electricity is one strategy that might improve the overall carbon balance. Another thing that needs to be acknowledged is that environmental impacts can also come from water management, carbon dioxide handling, and nutrient supply, several aspects that could constrain system design and implementation options. But, in general, Raceway Pond systems demonstrate a more attractive energy balance than PBR systems.

Economy

Production cost of microalgae-biofuel through implementation of raceway pond systems is dominated by the operational cost which includes labour, raw materials, and utilities. In raceway pond system, during the cultivation process, electricity takes up the largest energy fraction of total operational energy requirements. It is used to circulate the microalgae cultures. It takes up an energy fraction ranging from 22% to 79%. In contrast, capital cost dominates the cost of production of microalgae-biofuel in PBRs. This system has a high installation cost though the operational cost is relatively lower than raceway pond systems.

Microalgae-biofuel production costs a larger amount of money compared to fossil fuel production. The cost estimation of producing microalgae-biofuel is around $3.1 per litre ($11.57/US gal). Meanwhile, data provided by California Energy Commission shows that fossil fuel production in California costs $0.48 per litre ($1.820/US gal) by October, 2018. This price ratio leads many to choose fossil fuel for economic reasons, even as this results in increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Advancement in renewable energy is being developed to reduce this production cost.

Environmental impact

There are several known environmental impacts of cultivating microalgae:

Water resource

There could be an increasing demand of fresh water as microalgaes are aquatic organisms. Fresh water is used to compensate evaporation in raceway pond systems. It is used for cooling purpose. Using recirculating water might compensate for the needs of the water but it comes with a greater risk of infection and inhibition: bacteria, fungi, viruses. These inhibitors are found in greater concentrations in recycled waters along with non-living inhibitors such as organic and inorganic chemicals and remaining metabolites from destroyed microalgae cells.

Algae toxicity

Many microalgae species could produce some toxins (ranging from ammonia to physiologically active polypeptides and polysaccharides) in some point in their life cycle. These algae toxins may be important and valuable products in their applications in biomedical, toxicological and chemical research. However, they also come with negative effects. These toxins can be either acute or chronic. The acute example is the paralytic shellfish poisoning that may cause death. One of the chronic one is the carcinogenic and ulcerative tissue slow changes caused by carrageenan toxins produced in red tides. Since the high variability of toxins producing microalgae species, the presence or absence of toxins in a pond will not always be able to be predicted. It all depends on the environment and ecosystem condition.

Diesel from water and carbon dioxide

Audi has co-developed E-diesel, a carbon-neutral fuel with a high cetane number. It is also working on E-benzin, which is created using a similar process

Production

Water undergoes electrolysis at high temperatures to form Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas. The energy to perform this is extracted from renewable sources such as wind power. Then, the hydrogen is reacted with compressed carbon dioxide captured by direct air capture. The reaction produces blue crude which consists of hydrocarbon. The blue crude is then refined to produce high efficiency E-diesel. This method is, however, still debatable because with the current production capability it can only produce 3,000 liters in a few months, 0.0002% of the daily production of fuel in the US. Furthermore, the thermodynamic and economic feasibility of this technology have been questioned. An article suggests that this technology does not create an alternative to fossil fuel but rather converting renewable energy into liquid fuel. The article also states that the energy return on energy invested using fossil diesel is 18 times higher than that for e-diesel.

History

Investigation of carbon-neutral fuels has been ongoing for decades. A 1965 report suggested synthesizing methanol from carbon dioxide in air using nuclear power for a mobile fuel depot. Shipboard production of synthetic fuel using nuclear power was studied in 1977 and 1995. A 1984 report studied the recovery of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel plants. A 1995 report compared converting vehicle fleets for the use of carbon-neutral methanol with the further synthesis of gasoline.

Mitigation of peak oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_peak_oil 

 

The standard Hubbert curve, plotting crude oil production of a region over time.

 

World energy consumption, 1970–2025. Source: International Energy Outlook 2004.

The mitigation of peak oil is the attempt to delay the date and minimize the social and economic effects of peak oil by reducing the consumption of and reliance on petroleum. By reducing petroleum consumption, mitigation efforts seek to favorably change the shape of the Hubbert curve, which is the graph of real oil production over time predicted by Hubbert peak theory. The peak of this curve is known as peak oil, and by changing the shape of the curve, the timing of the peak in oil production is affected. An analysis by the author of the Hirsch report showed that while the shape of the oil production curve can be affected by mitigation efforts, mitigation efforts are also affected by the shape of Hubbert curve.

For the most part, mitigation involves fuel conservation, and the use of alternative and renewable energy sources. The development of unconventional oil resources can extend the supply of petroleum, but does not reduce consumption.

Historically, world oil consumption data show that mitigation efforts during the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks lowered oil consumption, while general recessions since the 1970s have had no effect on curbing the oil consumption until 2007. In the United States, oil consumption declines in reaction to high prices.

Key questions for mitigation are the viability of methods, the roles of government and private sector and how early these solutions are implemented. The responses to such questions and steps taken towards mitigation may determine whether or not the lifestyle of a society can be maintained, and may affect the population capacity of the planet.

Alternative energy

The most effective method of mitigating peak oil is to use renewable or alternative energy sources in place of petroleum.

Nuclear power, considered by some to be a viable alternative source, can be substituted for petroleum in some cases. China is preparing for the post-peak oil future by building pebble bed reactors configured to produce hydrogen fuel from the electrolysis of water. The use of nuclear power is often a highly contentious issue because of questions of the future availability of fuel and the dangerous nature of nuclear waste. Some current research projects are focused on neutron-free fusion power, in which hydrogen and boron are heated to over 1 billion degrees, though technical and economic barriers still exist.

In its October 2009 peak oil report, the Government-supported UK Energy Research Centre warned of the risk that 'rising oil prices will encourage the rapid development of carbon-intensive alternatives which will make it difficult or impossible to prevent dangerous climate change and stated that 'early investment in low-carbon alternatives to conventional oil is of considerable importance' in avoiding this scenario.

Iceland was the first country to suggest transitioning to 100% renewable energy, using hydrogen for vehicles and its fishing fleet, in 1998, but the actual progress has been very limited.

Transportation fuel use

Because most oil is consumed for transportation most mitigation discussions revolve around transportation issues.

Fuel substitution

While there is some interchangeability, the alternative energy sources available tend to depend on whether the fuel is being used in static or mobile applications.

Biofuel

The use of biofuels, which are fuels derived from recently dead biological material, reduces dependence on petroleum and enhances energy security. Biofuels also play significant roles in the "food vs fuel" debate, mitigation of oil prices, and energy balance and efficiency. Ethanol is a biofuel produced from crops high in sugar (e.g., sugar cane, sweet sorghum) or starch, (corn/maize). Biofuels can also be produced from plants that contain high amounts of vegetable oil, such as oil palm, soybean, algae, switchgrass, or jatropha. These oils can be burned directly in certain designs of diesel engines, or they can be chemically processed to produce fuels such as biodiesel. Wood and its byproducts can also be converted into biofuels such as woodgas, methanol or ethanol fuel. It is also possible to make cellulosic ethanol from non-edible plant parts, but this can be difficult to accomplish economically. Biofuels are most commonly used in vehicles, and in heating homes, and cooking. Biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Several firms have successfully created petroleum products in the lab using either solid catalysts or genetically modified microorganisms. As of July, 2008, such firms are producing petroleum products in very small quantities, but hope to increase production over the next few years.

Static installations

The substitution of oil with other fossil fuels is theoretically relatively easy when static installations are concerned, as in the case for electricity generation. Reserves of coal are substantial, and the technology to use it is well established. Increasing the use of coal, however, would lead to higher carbon emissions which is likely to be politically unacceptable in many countries due to the implications of global warming, although carbon capture and storage may provide a solution. Natural gas is another alternative, and combined cycle power generation using natural gas is the cleanest source of power available using fossil fuels, producing about 30% less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal. The major difficulty in the use of natural gas is transportation and storage because of its low density. Natural gas pipelines are economical, but are impractical across oceans.

Mobile applications

Due to its high energy density and ease of handling, oil has a unique role as a transportation fuel. There are, however, a number of possible alternatives. Among the biofuels the use of bioethanol and biodiesel is already established to some extent in some countries.

The use of hydrogen fuel is another alternative under development in various countries, alongside, hydrogen vehicles though hydrogen is actually an energy storage medium, not a primary energy source, and consequently the use of a non-petroleum source would be required to extract the hydrogen for use. Though hydrogen is currently outperformed in terms of cost and efficiency by battery powered vehicles, there are applications where it would come in useful. Short haul ferries and very cold climates are two examples. Hydrogen fuel cells are about a third as efficient as batteries and double the efficiency of gasoline vehicles.

Electric vehicles powered by batteries are another alternative, and these have the advantage of having the highest well-to-wheels efficiency rate of any energy pathway and thus would allow much greater numbers of vehicles than any other methods. In addition, even if the electricity was sourced from coal-fired power plants, two advantages would remain: first it is cheaper to sequester carbon from a few thousand smokestacks than it is to retrofit hundreds of millions of vehicles, and second encouraging the use of electric vehicles allows a further pathway for scaling up of renewable energy sources.

Currently the cost of batteries capable powering electric vehicles for a 300-mile (480 km) range (comparable to the range of many gasoline vehicles) is prohibitively high, though producing batteries for plug-in hybrids with a 40-mile (64 km) range could be done with current technology and current pricing models within the reach of the average person. A plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile (64 km) range would have the advantage that it uses no gasoline or diesel at all for the first 40 miles (a distance covering 80% of all vehicle commutes).

Unfortunately there are currently no production models of plug-in hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles (other than flex fuel) available from big manufacturers, though both Toyota and General Motors have promised versions around 2010. Fully electric vehicles are available from Tesla Motors for their high priced sports car and also a small city vehicle from Th!nk in Norway, in limited production runs in Norway and the UK.

Alternative aviation fuel

The Airbus A380 flew on alternative fuel for the first time on 1 February 2008. Boeing also plans to use alternative fuel on the 747. Because some biofuels such as ethanol contains less energy, more "tankstops" might be necessary for such planes.

The US Air Force is currently in the process of certifying its entire fleet to run on a 50/50 blend of synthetic fuel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process and JP-8 jet fuel.

Conservation

When alternative fuels are not available, the development of more energy efficient vehicles becomes an important mitigant. Some ways of decreasing the oil used in transportation include increasing the use of bicycles, public transport, carpooling, electric vehicles, and diesel and hybrid vehicles with higher fuel efficiency.

More comprehensive mitigations include better land use planning through smart growth to reduce the need for private transportation, increased capacity and use of mass transit, vanpooling and carpooling, bus rapid transit, telecommuting, and human-powered transport from current levels. Rationing and driving bans are also forms of reducing private transportation. The higher oil prices of 2007 and 2008 caused United States drivers to begin driving less in 2007 and to a much greater extent in the first three months of 2008.

In order to deal with potential problems from peak oil, Colin Campbell has proposed the Rimini protocol, a plan which among other things would require countries to balance oil consumption with their current production.

Unconventional oil

Unconventional oil is oil produced or extracted using techniques other than the traditional oil well method from sources such as oil sands, oil shale and the conversion of coal or natural gas to liquid hydrocarbons through processes such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Currently, unconventional oil production is less efficient and has a larger environmental impact relative to conventional oil production. Compared to conventional oil, much more energy is required to extract oil from non-conventional sources, so increasing costs and carbon emissions. Technology, such as using steam injection in oil sands deposits, is being developed to increase the efficiency of unconventional oil production.

Synthetic fuel, created via coal liquefaction, requires no engine modifications for use in standard automobiles. As a byproduct of oil embargoes during Apartheid in South Africa, Sasol, using the Fischer-Tropsch process, developed relatively low-cost coal-based fuel. Currently, about 30% of South Africa's transport-fuel (mostly diesel) is produced from coal. With crude-oil prices above US$40 per barrel, this process is now cost-effective.

Masdar, an experiment in mitigation

One government which is moving forward with mitigation plans is the emirate of Abu Dhabi. The United Arab Emirates economy minister stated in 2007 that the UAE do not believe that relying on oil revenues is sustainable, and so are moving to diversify their economies. Besides allotting land for solar power plants and partnering with Massachusetts Institute of Technology to build an alternative energy research institute, a new city is being constructed 17 kilometres (11 mi) east-southeast of the city of Abu Dhabi, which will rely entirely on solar energy, with a sustainable, zero-carbon, zero-waste ecology. Known as Masdar (Arabic for source), the initiative is headed by the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (ADFEC) The project is estimated to take some 10 years to complete, with the first phase complete and habitable in 2009, and a goal of housing 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses. The city is intended to cover 6 square kilometres (1,500 acres), with no point further than 200 m from a solar powered personal rapid transit link, housing energy, science and technology communities, commercial areas, a university, and the headquarters of the Future Energy Company. By relying on sustainable energy sources, keeping cars out of the city, returning to older architectural conventions (such as reducing air conditioning costs with large tents and narrow spaces between buildings), using sewage to produce energy and create soil, taking advantage of all recycling opportunities (including for and from construction), and reusing gray water, Masdar is designed to be a city which will consume no oil.

Bioplastics

Another major factor in petroleum demand is the widespread use of petroleum products such as plastic. These could be partially replaced by bioplastics, which are derived from renewable plant feedstocks such as vegetable oil, corn starch, hemp plants, pea starch, or microbiota. They are used either as a direct replacement for traditional plastics or as blends with traditional plastics. The most common end use market is for packaging materials. Japan has also been a pioneer in bioplastics, incorporating them into electronics and automobiles.

US government debate over mitigation strategies

Part of the current debate revolves around energy policy, and whether to shift funding to increasing energy conservation, fuel efficiency, or other energy sources like solar, wind, and nuclear power. At congressional peak oil hearings, Rep. Tom Udall argued that while rising oil prices would encourage alternatives (both on the supply and demand side), the costs and impacts of other issues involved with petroleum based personal transportation (such as pollution, the economic effects of global warming, security threats caused by sending vast amounts of money to the Middle East, and the costs of road maintenance) should also be taken into account. "Because the price of oil is artificially low, significant private investment in alternative technologies that provide a long-term payback does not exist. Until oil and its alternatives compete in a fair market, new technologies will not thrive."

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office suggested that, "the federal government could more effectively increase the efficiency of the nation's automotive fleet by raising gasoline taxes, imposing user fees on the purchase of low-mileage-per-gallon vehicles, or both." This would give automakers more incentive to research alternative fuel technology and increased efficiency (through lighter vehicles, better aerodynamics, and less wasted energy).

Hans-Holger Rogner, a section head at the IAEA, warned in 1997 that the level of incentive required for market driven research and development will actually rise. Because production costs are not expected to decrease and because of the continued emphasis companies give to short-term profits, "a regional breakdown for 11 world regions indicates that neither hydrocarbon resource availability nor costs are likely to become forces that automatically would help wean the global energy system from the use of fossil fuel during the next century."

The problems of privately funded research and development are not unique to peak oil mitigation. Bronwyn H. Hall, graduate economics professor at the Haas School of Business, points out that, "even if problems associated with incomplete appropriability of the returns to R&D are solved using intellectual property protection, subsidies, or tax incentives, it may still be difficult or costly to finance R&D using capital from sources external to the firm or entrepreneur. That is, there is often a wedge, sometimes large, between the rate of return required by an entrepreneur investing his own funds and that required by external investors." The severity of the problem for energy is echoed in the International Energy Agency's latest report.

In the US, transportation by car is guided more by the government than by an invisible hand. Roads and the interstate highway system were built by local, state and federal governments and paid for by income taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, and tolls. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is designed to offset market imbalances. Municipal parking is frequently subsidized. Emission standards regulate pollution by cars. US fuel economy standards exist but are not high enough to have effect. There is also a gas guzzler tax of limited scope. The United States offers tax credits for certain vehicles and these frequently are hybrids or compressed natural gas cars.

In order to be profitable, many alternatives to oil require the price of oil to remain above some level. Investors in these alternatives must gamble with the limited data on oil reserves available. This imperfect information can lead to a market failure caused by a move by nature. One explanation for this is Hotelling's rule for non-renewable resources. Even with perfect information the price of oil correlates with spare capacity and spare capacity does not warn of a peak. For example, in the early 1960s (10 years before oil production peaked in the United States), there was enough spare capacity in US production that Hubbert's predicted peak of 1966-1971 was "at the very least completely unrealistic to most people," preventing the necessary steps being taken to mitigate the situation. The absence of accurate information about spare production capacity exacerbates the current situation.

Lester Brown believes this problem might be solved by the government establishing a price floor for oil. A tax shift raising gas taxes is the same idea. Opponents of such a price floor argue that the markets would distrust the government's ability to keep the policy when oil prices are low.

In 2007, a Pentagon Report, "Space-Based Solar Power: An Opportunity for Strategic Security" proposed Space-Based Solar Power as a macro solution to peak oil and fossil fuel depletion. Recently a proposal for US leadership in SBSP won the SECDEF D3 competition. Engineer Keith Henson discussed the scale in "Dollar a Gallon Gasoline". Mike Snead has recently assessed prospects for US fossil fuels and SSP in "US fossil fuel energy insecurity and space solar power". Snead and Henso recently put out a video.

Implications of an unmitigated world peak

Oil depletion scenarios

According to the Hirsch report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2005, a global decline in oil production would have serious social and economic implications without due preparation. Initially, an unmitigated peak in oil production would manifest itself as rapidly escalating prices and a worldwide energy crisis. While past oil shortages stemmed from a temporary insufficiency of supply, crossing Hubbert's Peak means that the production of oil continues to decline, so demand must be reduced to meet supply. If alternatives or conservation (orderly demand destruction) are not forthcoming, then disorderly demand destruction will occur, with the possible effect that the many products and services produced with oil become scarcer, leading to lower living standards.

• Air travel, using roughly 7% of world oil consumption, would be one of the affected services. The energy density of hydrocarbons and the power density of a jet engine are so necessary for aviation that hydrocarbon fuels are nearly impossible to replace with electricity, to an extent beyond any other common mode of transport.
• A US Army Corps of Engineers report on the military's energy options states

  The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas is not well coordinated with either the nation’s or the Earth’s resources and upcoming availability.

• Shipping costs

  On average, a one percent increase in fuel prices leads to a 0.4% increase in total freight rates. Using this rule of thumb, the recent doubling in oil prices has raised averaged freight rates by almost 40%.

Shipping costs are particularly relevant to a country like Japan that has greater food miles.

• Increasing cost of oil for importing countries ultimately reduces those countries' purchase of non-oil goods abroad. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco discusses oil and the US balance of trade:

  Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of 2004.

US indications of economic volatility have manifested themselves in the largest increase in inflation rates in 15 years (Sept. 2005), due mostly to higher energy costs.

• Significant oil producing countries will have a national purchasing advantage over similar countries with no oil to sell. This can result in larger militaries for oil producers or inflation of the price of whatever commodities they purchase. Saudi Arabia purchased US$40 billion worth of arms from the US between 1990 and 2000.
• The United States averaged 464 US gallons (1,760 L) of gas per person in 2004. Therefore, increased gasoline cost will likely make gas reducing alternatives increasingly necessary and common for lower income US residents.

Those who feel that much more drastic imminent social and cultural changes will occur from oil shortages are known as doomers.