"All of the Above" Must Be Weighted by Common Sense

• "All of the Above" is just a cliché if not tempered by an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of different energy sources, and a standard basis of comparison.
• Renewable energy is gaining market share, but fossil fuels--especially oil and gas--will play crucial roles in the energy mix for decades.

Last month, Real Clear Politics and API hosted an energy summit in Washington, DC entitled, “Fueling America’s Future”. It was intended to provide a quick overview of most of the key technologies and issues associated with an all-of-the-above energy strategy for the United States. Going through the highlights of the webcast gives me an opportunity to summarize my point of view for new readers of this blog. I’d sum that up as “All of the Above”, with asterisks for the proportions and situations that make sense.

This slogan, at least in the manner in which it has been espoused by politicians in both parties, has attracted fair criticism for being overly bland and safe. I suspect that critique reflects a general sense that our energy mix has always been composed of all of the above, or at least all of the technologies that were sufficiently proven and economic to contribute at scale at any point in time. However, as both our technology options and choice criteria expand, our understanding of the evolving energy mix is hampered by metrics and assumptions that are overdue to be revisited.

The summit’s first panel examined the technologies of the mix, in a “lightning-round” format of five minutes apiece. The panel covered oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and renewables, led by wind power.

The interim CEO of the main US wind energy trade association, AWEA, cited his industry’s progress in reducing the technology’s cost, increasing the domestic content in its US value chain from 25% to 67%, and expanding its market penetration. Mr. Gramlich was also surprisingly forthright about wind power’s continued dependence on federal subsidies, a point to which I’ll return in future posts.

He began with a statistic indicating that wind power was #1 in new US electric generation capacity last year. This is more than just a talking point, but it calls for some refinement if we’re to see an accurate picture of the changing US electricity mix. When most generating facilities operated within a narrow band of expected utilization, say 60%-80% of the time, comparing their nameplate capacities like this was satisfactory. Exceptions such as “peaking” gas turbines that only operate a few dozen or hundred hours a year were never the recipients of targeted government incentives.

Now, however, our energy mix includes technologies with effective utilization rates, or “capacity factors”, ranging from as low as 10% for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in cloudy northern locations, to roughly 90% for nuclear power. Wind comes in around 20-35%, depending on site and turbine size. In terms of their likely annual power generation, new natural gas facilities actually led new wind farms by roughly 2:1 last year.

Given the enormous and largely unanticipated natural gas renaissance in the US, that shouldn’t surprise anyone. In my first blog post over nine years ago I posed a series of questions, including whether we were on the verge of an energy technology breakthrough. I had in mind something involving renewable or nuclear energy, energy storage, or vehicle technology. The shale gas revolution was already starting to emerge from obscurity, but I, along with most other energy experts at the time, remained oblivious to it.

The new head of the American Natural Gas Alliance described gas as clean, abundant and affordable. At least the last two points should be uncontroversial by now, backed up by market prices and resource assessments. We tend to think of gas as a bridge fuel to a lower emission future, but I think we’ll increasingly hear it called a “foundation fuel,” as Mr. Durbin did.

The spokesman from the Solar Energy Industries Association accurately referred to solar as our fastest growing energy source, though he didn’t explain how it would grow from 0.1% of US generation last year to more than 1% by next year. He alluded to a plausible inflection point based on policy and innovation, but his enthusiasm that solar was expanding rapidly outside California and the Southwest ought to worry us.

Until PV prices fall much lower than they have, a surge of installations in places like Vermont and Wisconsin means that taxpayers and ratepayers are paying more than they should to make that happen. And the global competition and “survival of the fittest” he touted has mainly resulted, not from capitalism, but from dueling government incentives for solar, especially in Europe and Asia. I’m much more positive about solar than the above might suggest, but like other renewables, it will cost less and achieve more for us in locations with high-quality resources.

The discussion on oil was more globally focused, based on BP’s forecasts and annual Statistical Review. Contrary to the widespread view of oil’s continued dominance, it has been losing market share over the last 40 years — including the last 13 years in a row — and stands at its lowest market share in the US since at least World War II.  The representative from BP linked this performance to oil’s concentration in transportation fuel, where it has been squeezed out by efficiency, low economic growth (and to some extent biofuels, which got short shrift in the session). At the same time, the growth of North American production, another dividend of the shale revolution, puts increasing pressure on OPEC. I’ll come back to this dynamic in future posts.

Wind and solar aren’t the only, or even the biggest, renewables, despite the attention they receive. I was glad to see hydropower–often the forgotten renewable–represented on the panel, though I was disappointed by the absence of geothermal power. Both are more geographically constrained, yet have features that wind and solar could only wish for.  Hydro generated nearly 7% of US electricity last year from just 3% of US dams, with significant potential for growth through retrofitting unpowered dams. The Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association quoted Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as saying, “Hydro is back.” That could prompt some interesting discussions.

I’m glad I wasn’t there representing coal, which must surely be the least loved energy source today. It continues to grow globally, with US coal exports playing a role, but the domestic US story is a “decline narrative” as the VP of the National Mining Association described it. He managed to find a note of optimism in the more efficient coal power fleet that will remain after 68,000 MW of old capacity retires by 2020, under pressure from various regulations and competition from natural gas. Unfortunately, efficiency alone isn’t sufficient. From my perspective, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the key to reconciling coal’s convenience and low energy cost with its high emissions. CCS wasn’t mentioned by name, but was only alluded to as “technology that does not exist.” That dismisses it too lightly, as I’ll explain when time permits.

The head of government affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute spoke last in the lightning round on technology. (The subsequent panel on energy issues is worth your time, too.) He emphasized nuclear’s anchor role in the US electricity mix, with 12% of US generating capacity contributing around 20% of the electricity supply at a cost of 2¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Yet despite five new reactors under construction and a wave of license extensions, post-Fukushima the center of the nuclear industry is shifting to places like China and India. 66 reactors are under construction outside the US, mainly in the developing world, because that’s where demand is growing.

I’ve worked in various aspects of energy for more than 30 years, and for much of that time our energy mix and the forces that drive it have been in a state of flux. With that in mind, my recipe for “all of the above”  starts with what we have now, recognizes the inertia of existing fleets and infrastructure, and evolves as costs shift and our emphasis on environmental consequences grows.

Wind and especially solar will grow, but will add the most value when used with, rather than against the grain of their limitations. Nor will energy storage turn them into reliable, baseload energy sources like nuclear and coal, at least until it is much cheaper. The US natural gas opportunity looks transformative in a way that renewables don’t, yet, with value well beyond power generation. Coal will linger, but without effective CCS will remain vulnerable from many angles. Meanwhile, oil remains the indispensable fuel for transportation, which is the cornerstone of our global economy. Yet its indispensability will erode in increments each year, as EVs eventually grow from novelty to significance and new biofuels start to emulate oil’s trump cards of convenience and energy density. It’s a great time to be talking about energy, as it has been for the last nine years.

A slightly different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider.

Could US Oil Trends Alter How Oil Prices Are Set?

• Oil prices weren't always set by a transparent global market. Current pricing mechanisms emerged from much less transparent precursors.
• Resurgent US production, combined with restrictions on US oil exports, could disconnect the US from the global oil market, with unexpected results.

If you follow energy closely, you've likely lost count of the number of times you've heard an economist, executive or government official explain that oil prices are set by the global market, and not by oil companies or the US government.  Although somewhat over-simplified, this statement has been valid for roughly 30 years.  However, it hasn't always been the case. Current trends in US production, together with existing regulations, make me wonder if it will remain accurate in the future, as the US inches closer to what is commonly referred to as energy independence. 

The market-based system of oil prices, with its transparency and easy trading among regions, didn't appear overnight.  Until the early 1970s, Texas played a role similar to Saudi Arabia's current swing producer role within OPEC.  By limiting the output of the state's oil wells, the Texas Railroad Commission effectively determined the global price of oil--to the extent there was one--until Texas had no spare capacity left.  That set the stage for OPEC, a succession of oil crises, and the US oil price controls that were imposed in the 1970s in an attempt to help manage inflation. There was also no single, representative oil price.  Instead, prices were set by producers' contract terms and the discounts large refiners could negotiate, or by federal regulations.  The current system emerged from a series of developments in the 1980s.

When US oil price controls ended in 1981, oil futures trading was just getting underway on the New York Mercantile Exchange.  The heating oil contract was launched in 1980, followed by the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil contract in 1983. This combined large-scale oil trading with an unprecedented level of transparency.   It was also significant that the US, the world's biggest oil consumer, had become a major oil importer after domestic production peaked in 1970.  Because refineries on the coasts competed for oil supplies with refiners on other continents, the price of WTI couldn't get too far out of line with imported crudes without creating arbitrage opportunities for traders.  And any part of the US connected by pipeline to the Gulf Coast was effectively linked to oil prices in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

After OPEC miscalculated the response to the very high prices its members were demanding in that period--reaching $100 per barrel in today's dollars--global oil demand shrank by nearly 10% from 1979 to 1983, while non-OPEC production grew by more than 12%.  Prices soon collapsed, and OPEC's dominance of oil markets faded for most of the next two decades, during which the futures exchanges and trading relationships of the modern oil market took hold. 

What could shake the current system of oil prices?  It has already withstood recessions, wars in the Middle East, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the explosive growth of Asia, with China alone adding oil demand comparable to that of the EU's five largest economies.  However, since the current system is based on the free flow of oil between regions, anything that impedes that flow could undermine the way oil is currently priced.

Setting aside conflict scenarios, consider the potential impact of sustained growth in US production, combined with flat or declining demand and no change in the current prohibition on most US crude oil exports.  The gyrating differential between WTI and UK Brent crude, reflecting rising production in the mid-continent and serious logistical bottlenecks, provides a glimpse of what this could be like.  With much of the new US production coming in the form of oils lighter than those for which most Gulf Coast refineries have been optimized, keeping rising US crude output bottled up here could result in US crude prices diverging even farther  from global prices, while forcing US refineries to operate less efficiently and import and export more refined products.  With oil imports drastically reduced and oil exports still banned, US oil prices might be influenced more by the global market for refined products, with its different dynamics and players, than by the global crude oil market .

In some respects, that sounds a lot like what many politicians and "energy hawks" have been seeking for years: a US no longer subject to foreign oil producers' price demands.  Yet this same scenario could yield all sorts of unintended consequences, including a less competitive US refining industry and higher or at least more volatile prices for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  And just as we've seen with cheap natural gas, cheaper oil could undermine the economics of the unconventional oil and gas production that makes it possible in the first place. 

US oil export policy merits a thorough reevaluation, and soon, because the regional impacts of a continued no-export stance could become pronounced, even if the US never reached overall oil self-sufficiency. Such a review should include related regulations, such as the Jones Act restrictions on shipping. With crude oil exports to Canada -- virtually the only allowed export destination for our newly abundant crude types--already rising rapidly, some Canadian refineries may be positioned to supply US east coast fuel markets more cheaply than refineries in New Jersey.  That certainly qualifies as an unintended consequence.

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

...and Two Steps Back for Cleantech

• The Better Place bankruptcy ends an interesting effort to circumvent some big impediments to the wider adoption of electric vehicles.
• DESERTEC's original concept would have matched European solar investment with superior North African solar resources, but was no match for European politics.

Within the last week two of the previous decade's Big Ideas for accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy--or at least to electricity generated from a variety of cleaner sources--have come up short.  On May 26th electric-vehicle-battery-swapping firm Better Place filed for bankruptcy liquidation in Israel, and just a few days later the DESERTEC Foundation reportedly "abandoned its strategy to export solar power generated from the Sahara to Europe".  Both of these concepts originally looked promising, and I take no satisfaction in their apparent failure.  However, these events must be telling us something.

Better Place was aimed squarely at two of the largest perceived barriers to wider acceptance of electric vehicles (EVs): the limited range of today's EV batteries and the relatively long times required to recharge them, compared to a typical three-minute fill-up at the gas pump.  Better Place's big idea involved the standardization of EV battery packs on a design that could be quickly removed from the vehicle and robotically replaced with a fully charged battery. This required large up-front investments in facilities and hardware, but the firm didn't fail for lack of capitalization. 

Despite having raised around $800 million since its founding in 2008, and convincing French carmaker Renault to produce vehicles designed to work with their technology, Better Place failed to standardize the emerging EV battery market.  Tesla used a different battery configuration from the start and has focused on its own fast-charging technology, while even Renault's global alliance partner Nissan didn't make compatibility with Better Place a standard feature of its Leaf EV in markets like the US or Australia. That led Better Place to invest in building more-conventional EV recharging networks to accommodate other EVs, diluting both its capital and its concept. 

I see two lessons here. First, EVs and related services are still a niche market, and in spite of its aspirations Better Place became a niche within this niche, largely dependent on the success of EV manufacturers at growing their potential market.  That's a poor place from which to launch a business that ultimately depends on achieving high volumes.  The other lesson is that when you can't make sense of a company's revenue and working-capital model, there's probably a good reason.  At this stage in their development, EV battery packs are apparently still too expensive to sit idle in large numbers, waiting for a swap, when the hardware to exchange them requires the same retail footprint as a car-repair bay--all this to support a service arguably only worth a few hundred dollars per year to an EV owner, compared to the normal cost of recharging.

DESERTEC's big idea was even simpler than Better Place's.  A well-sited solar array in North Africa would inherently generate at least twice as much electricity per year as the same array in Germany, the Netherlands, or Belgium.  All else being equal, it would make more sense to invest in solar where the sun shines brightly for more than 6 hours a day, on average, and to send it by wire to the cloudy, northern countries that want more green power.  Of course physics can't always trump politics, and I suspect that this has more to do with DESERTEC's withdrawal from its basic concept than the cited concerns about transmission capacity and grid congestion across Spain and France. 

Politics enter the story in two main ways.  Renewable energy in the EU is deeply entangled with industrial policy and green jobs. From that standpoint, it's even better if a PV panel in Germany produces half the output as one in Morocco, because you can sell twice as many, all installed by local firms and workers. Then there's the interaction between the EU's generous solar subsidies and the solar manufacturing incentives in Asia and elsewhere, resulting in enormous overcapacity, relative to demand, and a now-global wave of solar bankruptcies and defaults.  This has pushed PV module prices down to a level at which the other costs of solar energy, including installation and transmission, begin to outweigh the module costs. That erodes North Africa's solar advantage relative to its northern neighbors. Throw in the lingering effects of the financial crisis, and a once-big idea looks like an unworkable dead end, at least for now.

Neither the failure of Better Place, which might yet find a bargain-hunting savior, nor the retreat of DESERTEC looks like a mortal blow to the long energy transition now underway.  However, they do suggest that the timeline is a little less likely to be shortened by the kinds of big leaps they offered.  EVs will have to gain market share the hard way, with better, cheaper batteries and ample recharging infrastructure--plus continued taxpayer subsidies--while inefficient solar subsidies continue to divert investment away from some of the world's best renewable energy resources, keeping the technology's global contribution smaller for longer.    

Can Energy Storage Make Wind and Solar Power As Reliable As Coal?

Wind and solar power generated 3.5% and about 0.1%, respectively, of US electricity last year.  These figures represent large increases from much smaller levels in the last decade as the cost of these technologies declined significantly, particularly for solar photovoltaic (PV) modules. However, other barriers to wider deployment remain, including their intermittent output.  Energy storage is often portrayed as the killer app for overcoming the intermittency of renewables, and a number of interesting developments have occurred on this front, including a new "hybrid" wind turbine with integrated storage from GE. To what extent could more and cheaper storage enable wind and solar to function as the equivalent of high-utilization, baseload generation? 

Assessing that potential requires, among other things, recognizing that energy storage is neither new nor monolithic. Nor is the intermittency of renewable energy a single challenge.  For example, the output of a wind turbine and the wind farm in which it operates varies on time scales of minutes, hours and days, as well as months and years.  The output of a PV installation varies somewhat more predictably, but no less dramatically. 

Generating companies and project developers have an array of new storage options, involving various battery technologies, flywheels, and compressed air. Pumped storage, in which water is pumped uphill and generates power later when it flows back downhill, is an old, though hardly obsolete option and already operates on a large scale. According to the National Hydropower Association the US has 22,000 MW of installed pumped storage. This, too, is expanding and remains one of the cheapest forms of power storage in terms of cost per megawatt-hour (MWh) delivered.   Enough new projects have received preliminary permits to more than triple that figure, in 23 states.

All of these storage alternatives have limitations or drawbacks.  Batteries and flywheels, while very responsive, are still expensive.  Compressed air storage often relies on unique local geological features, and some versions essentially function as a supercharger for a gas-fired turbine, resulting in some emissions. Pumped storage works well at a variety of scales but is less responsive than batteries, has a larger physical footprint, and requires suitable terrain. 

What makes GE's "brilliant turbine" with battery storage look clever is that, with the help of predictive models, it requires a very small amount of battery storage--perhaps as little as that in an electric car--to smooth the output of the turbine for 15 minutes to an hour. That provides significant benefits, including financial ones, in terms of integrating it predictably into the power grid. However, it doesn't transform the turbine into a fully dispatchable generator capable of sending power to the grid whenever demanded.  That would require storing much more energy per turbine and delivering it at rates sufficient to replace the entire output of the installation for at least several hours, along the lines of concentrated solar power installations with thermal storage.

Even these techniques don't get us to the point at which a dedicated wind farm or solar installation could replace a baseload coal-fired power plant of similar capacity running 80% of the time.  For starters, energy storage doesn't alter the total amount of energy collected from the wind or sun.  In an area with good onshore wind resources, generating the same energy as 100 MW of coal capacity would take around 267 MW of wind turbines, because the wind doesn't blow at optimum speed all the time, and other times it doesn't blow at all. The wind farm would also need enough storage to absorb any output over 100 MW, and then make up any shortfalls below 100 MW for the longest duration that would be expected.  The figures for a solar installation would be similar. It just doesn't sound very practical, unless storage became dirt cheap.

Fortunately for renewable energy developers, that isn't what grid operators expect of wind or solar.  In most situations the local grid takes their output whenever it's available, though not necessarily at the price that a generator capable of committing its capacity in advance or responding on demand would receive.  So there's a financial incentive for renewables to add a bit of storage to "firm up" some capacity, while bulk storage appears to be more desirable as a separate asset available to the grid, just like a "peaking" gas turbine, to support multiple renewable sources. Of course in that case there's no guarantee that the power stored would come from renewables.  It's likelier to come from whatever is the cheapest off-peak generation in that market.

So while it's easy to see how improved energy storage can enhance the economics of renewable energy and enable it to be integrated into the grid to a greater extent than otherwise, it's less obvious that even cheap, large-scale energy storage is a panacea for intermittent renewables like wind and solar.  It might even have greater benefits for low-emission but more reliable forms of generation, such as nuclear and geothermal, by allowing them routinely to shift a set portion of their output into more valuable segments of the regional power market. 

Disclosure: My portfolio includes investment in GE, which makes products mentioned above.

The 2013 Energy Trust Barometer: Mixed Readings

Yesterday's panel discussion in Washington, DC on "The Trust Factor" in energy couldn't have been more timely. The stakes for lost trust seemed especially apparent against the backdrop of an EU probe into allegations of price fixing in the spot oil market, involving some of the industry's largest players, and coverage of the IRS and Associated Press wiretapping scandals.  The session was hosted by The Energy Collective and communications firm Edelman, which presented the energy-related findings from its latest annual Trust Barometer.  The theme of this year's survey was a "Crisis of Leadership."

Edelman found a small improvement in the US public's trust for the energy industry, compared to last year.  Yet energy's trust level of 59%, which is slightly better than government's 53%, falls far short of the 80% trust score for the technology sector, followed by the automotive, food and beverage, and alcoholic beverage industries in the 70%'s. Energy's position isn't encouraging, considering its importance to the overall economy, but the details resist a blanket assessment.  Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) enjoyed a big jump in trust from 2012 to 2013, up to 70%.

Trust levels within energy differed widely by energy source, with a 30% gap between renewables, which garnered 65%, and oil at 35%.  Natural gas and utilities came in near the average for energy as a whole, reflecting closer customer connections for the latter, and the technology-driven, cost-saving growth of the former, notwithstanding concerns about hydraulic fracturing.  Although renewables have been involved in some messy bankruptcies and an ongoing debate over subsidies, their reduced environmental impacts and links to cutting-edge R&D puts them closer to the technology end of the trust spectrum.  Oil--arguably just as technology-focused as renewables--suffers from the fallout from events like Deepwater Horizon, and perceptions of inadequate stakeholder engagement.  Yet this disparity in trust levels also creates mutually beneficial opportunities for partnership.

I thought the most surprising findings were those describing how the factors that affect trust have evolved in recent years. In the past trust could be earned by simply focusing on operational results, including financial performance and company rankings; now that's just the cost of admission. Engagement with customers and employees, along with business ethics and transparency, topped the list of today's trust factors. This might explain at least part of the gulf between oil and renewables.  In my experience, oil executives live and breathe operations and shareholder returns, although broader definitions of stakeholder relations have been gaining ground in the last decade or so.  Yet the insular nature of these businesses, which have lived under decades of regulatory and anti-trust scrutiny, works against their embrace of new media and other tools of open engagement with both customers and critics.

The panel discussion that followed the Edelman presentation was also quite interesting.  Paula Gant of the American Gas Association memorably described the synergies between natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency as a symphony.  Jason Walsh of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy addressed concerns about the reform of subsidies for renewable energy, while reminding the audience that private investment in renewables stood at $269 billion last year.  Peter Nelson, communications director of Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan, highly trusted NGO, offered his thoughts on the politicization of environmental issues, which seems linked to polarization over climate change.  Robert Dillon, communications director of the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, pointed out that much of the current debate is over facts, asking, "Who owns the facts?"  The panel was moderated by Paul Bledsoe, a veteran of Congress, the White House and policy circles.  His comment that, "It's a stakeholder world, not a shareholder world," encapsulated what might have been the key takeaway of the day for companies. 

As good as the panel discussion was, when I left I was still mulling over an implication raised by Amy Hemingway of Edelman in her remarks at the start of the session.  Energy policy involves the intersection of government and energy companies.  It surely complicates the challenging tasks we face, with regard to resource management and environmental stewardship, that much of the public doesn't trust government or energy to solve our important problems.  Both institutions suffer from serious trust gaps, while NGOs, who as one panelist observed have significantly fewer constraints on their statements and actions, enjoy more trust than either one (or both together?)  Especially for the energy industry, getting things done increasingly requires more than good plans and solid returns. Its "license to lead", as another panelist described it, must be earned by engaging in activities that usually aren't second nature for experienced engineers and finance experts.

How Is Expanding Oil and Gas Production Consistent with Addressing Climate Change?

Last month the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of global energy use was essentially unchanged between 1990 and 2010, despite the implementation of global climate agreements and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy projects and incentives. Just a few days earlier, the US Environmental Protection Agency released its annual inventory of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, showing a 1.6% reduction from 2010 to 2011. US emissions were up 8% since 1990 but have fallen 5% since 2000 and nearly 8% from their pre-recession peak in 2007. Much of the US's recent divergence from the global trend is attributable to the displacement of coal from the power sector by shale gas.

As unwelcome as the IEA's finding was, it is unlikely to have shocked anyone who understands the scale of global energy systems and the continued reliance of many developed and developing countries on coal for power generation. The transition to lower-carbon energy systems is underway, as reflected in the details of the IEA report. However, it will take additional decades to reach targets consistent with limiting the projected global temperature increase to 2° C, which the IEA indicates would require a 60% reduction in the carbon intensity of energy by 2050 from current levels. That implies that energy companies still need to develop additional oil and gas resources in the interim, in order to support the economic activity that--among other things--will be necessary to fund the recommended investments in cleaner energy and energy efficiency.

At first glance that might seem paradoxical. After all, oil and gas account for 55% of US GHG emissions and around 40% of global emissions today. However, when gas displaces a higher-emitting fuel like coal, global emissions fall. This has been a matter of some controversy, due to uncertainty about the contribution of fugitive methane emissions from shale gas wells. Yet the estimates in the EPA inventory indicate that methane emissions from US natural gas systems actually fell by 9% between 2005 and 2011, even though US natural gas production grew by 27% over that interval, with shale gas output increasing by 950%. A new analysis from ExxonMobil indicates that on a lifecycle basis, replacing coal with shale gas in power generation reduces GHG emissions by an average of 53%, while also reducing overall freshwater consumption by half.

Assessing the role of oil in the decarbonization of global energy is more complicated. Oil exploration and development must continue, even in a static or eventually shrinking market, because reserves that have been produced must be replaced, by either new discoveries or further development of existing fields. Simply allowing today's oil fields to decline and hoping to make up their energy contribution from other sources would be very risky, particularly for the transportation sector with its extremely high reliance on oil. Moreover, four-fifths of the emissions from petroleum occur during end-use combustion. That means that most emission reductions from petroleum must come about through reduced demand, via some combination of increased fuel efficiency, fuel substitution--particularly in those markets where oil is still used in electricity generation--and/or reductions in transportation metrics such as vehicle miles traveled.

In a recent Bloomberg op-ed, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations considered the impact of increasing US oil production from the standpoint of both the "social cost of carbon" and its incremental contribution to global emissions. He concluded that even at a high estimated environmental cost, the climate impact of an extra barrel of US oil would come in under $10 per barrel, well below its economic value. He also concluded that significantly higher US oil production would add little to global emissions. Its impact would be even smaller if OPEC producers reduced output to try to preserve high oil prices. Mr. Levi addressed that scenario in an earlier op-ed.

Last month's IEA report concluded that the world is not yet on track to reduce emissions by enough to limit temperature increases to 2° C, and more must be done. Yet even if we were on that track, the IEA forecasts upon which the report was based suggest that combined oil and gas consumption in 2035 would still be about 2% higher in 2035 than in 2010, with a bit of a shift from oil to gas. On today's trajectory, both oil and gas will grow, even as renewable energy and energy efficiency expand significantly. On either basis, an all-of-the-above approach to energy encompassing oil and gas, along with renewables, carbon sequestration, nuclear power and efficiency is fully consistent with addressing climate change.

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

Ex-Shell Chief Hofmeister Promotes US Fuel Diversity

Alternative fuels have lost some of their luster in the US, lately, for understandable reasons.  Oil production here is booming based on shale resources that keep expanding, while the market for ethanol, our most successful alternative fuel, has stalled at the long-anticipated "blend wall", resulting in ethanol plant closures and bankruptcy filings.  More advanced cellulosic biofuel is still only available in minute quantities, and last year's sales of electric vehicles will displace less than 24 million gallons per year of gasoline--around 0.02% of US gasoline demand.  With all this in mind, it seemed like an excellent time to speak with former Shell Oil Company President John Hofmeister, who recently joined the advisory board of the Fuel Freedom Foundation, a group dedicated to expanding fuel diversity. 

I don't conduct many interviews for Energy Outlook, but I wouldn't have missed the opportunity to discuss energy with Mr. Hofmeister.  Given the focus of Fuel Freedom Foundation, which arranged the call, I started by asking him what kind of changes he expects in the US fuel mix over the next 10 years.  Mr. Hofmeister replied that his outreach efforts at Fuel Freedom, together with Citizens for Affordable Energy, which he founded after retiring as head of Shell's US operations, are intended to "make sure something has changed 10 years out. Left to our own devices, not much will change."  With plans and "enablers of change" from government, he sees an opportunity to "transform the nation in 10 years." He went on to describe what that transformation might include, in the form of further decreases in our dependence on imported oil and more "inward investment".  He also clarified that he includes domestic oil in his list of alternatives. 

When I asked him about the barriers impeding the fuel diversity that he advocates, he immediately mentioned the interest groups that spring up, pro and con, whether concerning oil, natural gas, the lifecycle and materials for advanced vehicle batteries, or infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.  He would like to see federal and state governments enable change and "tell the interest groups to back off."  He observed that despite the shale revolution, "we still rely on imports and can't agree on creating new markets for natural gas" or to build the Keystone XL pipeline.  These disagreements stifle development. Together with federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, this results in "government as disabler", not enabler of change.

We had a lively conversation about some of the specific fuels that would make up the more diverse mix Mr. Hofmeister would like to see in the marketplace, such as methanol, ethanol, natural gas and electricity.  I expressed some of my own concerns about the energy-equivalent cost of methanol and the safety risks involved in its use on the service station forecourt.  He replied that with expanded supply based on abundant US natural gas, the price of methanol could fall significantly from today's level of $1.60/gal. (equivalent to wholesale gasoline at $3.25/gal.)  That's certainly conceivable, because at a typical 70% conversion efficiency, the natural gas feedstock to produce a gallon of methanol would only cost about $0.37 at recent industrial gas prices.  He also envisioned fuels like this being dispensed in a closed system, to maximize safety.

We discussed natural gas as a bridge fuel for vehicles and whether it might be hard to get off this bridge, later.  In response he pointed to what he called the "EV lifestyle"--the improved convenience and driveability already experienced by EV owners who don't need extended driving ranges--and seemed to agree with my own view of electrification as  a given in the long-run.  He also suggested that this transition could be promoted by a coherent and comprehensive plan.  Earlier, he had pointed out that the administration's "all of the above" approach was just a concept, not a plan, because it lacks the targets, milestones and accountability necessary for a real plan--a point on which an ex-CEO and current strategist were bound to agree.

I couldn't end the interview without asking Mr. Hofmeister whether the tremendous recent turnaround in US oil production had led him to alter his idea, expressed in various talks and in his book, "Why We Hate the Oil Companies," for the US to establish an energy equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank.  "I'm convinced it's the way to go," he said. "There's too much politics in energy policy now." He believes an "Energy Reserve Board" would stimulate the economy with investments focused on short, medium and long-term goals.  "What energy needs is consistency."

My half-hour conversation with him validated my view that John Hofmeister isn't your typical oil guy.  His ideas are grounded in the scale and complexity of the energy industry, but not bound by its conventional wisdom.  Although I didn't agree with all of them--particularly concerning the degree of government intervention necessary--his responses to my questions were forthright and reflected long and careful analysis, along with a strong sense of the benefits available to the US from a more rational and planned approach to our national energy endowment and opportunities.