Don’t Count Oil Out

Alternative energies won’t replace oil, gas, and coal anytime soon.

By Robert Bryce|Posted Friday, Oct. 14, 2011, at 7:20 AM ET

This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. On Oct. 19, you’re invited to join us for a Future Tense event in Washington, D.C., about the next era of energy. For more information and to RSVP for “What Will Turn Us On in 2030?,”visit the New America Foundation’s website.

It’s easy to pick the dominant environmental issue of the last decade. It has been the issue of climate change and what—if anything—the countries of the world can do to limit, or reduce, carbon dioxide emissions.

But during that same decade, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by 28.5 percent to some 33 billion tons. And by 2030, the International Energy Agencyexpects global carbon dioxide emissions to rise by another 21 percent to about 40 billion tons.

Carbon dioxide emissions will continue rising because hundreds of millions of people in places like Vietnam, Malaysia, and South Korea—and, of course, China and India—are transitioning to a modern lifestyle, complete with cars, TVs, and other manufactured goods. As they do so, they are using more energy. Specifically, they are using more hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and natural gas. And while lots of idealistic environmentalists and some policymakers argue that we should quit using carbon-based fuels and move to a global economy powered by nothing but renewables, the hard reality is that hydrocarbons are here to stay.

There are three reasons why hydrocarbons will continue to dominate the global energy mix for decades to come: cost, the slow pace of energy transitions, and scale.

Explaining the first issue is relatively easy. The global energy sector is by far the world’s biggest industry, with more than $5 trillion per year spent finding, refining, and delivering energy of various forms to consumers. Renewable sources like wind and solar have their virtues, but they cannot compare with hydrocarbons when it comes to economics. A recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration estimates that wind-generated electricity from onshore wind turbines costs $97 per megawatt-hour. That’s about 50 percent more than the same amount of electricity generated by natural gas, which the EIA estimates costs $63. Offshore wind is even more expensive, coming in at $243 per megawatt hour. The least-expensive form of solar-generated electricity—the type generated by photovoltaic panels—costs $210, or more than three times as much as the juice produced by burning natural gas.

If renewable sources of energy were dramatically cheaper than hydrocarbons, then perhaps we could be more optimistic about their ability to capture a larger part of the global energy mix. But even if that were true, a wholesale change in our energy mix will take a long time. “There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish,” wrote Vaclav Smil in 2008. Indeed, for 109 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, wood was the dominant source of energy in America. It wasn’t until 1885—the year that Grover Cleveland was first sworn in as president—that coal finally surpassed wood as the largest source of energy in the United States. Coal remained king until 1950, when it was deposed by oil. “And the greater the scale of prevailing uses and conversions, the longer the substitutions will take.” Smil, a polymath, prolific author on energy issues, and distinguished professor at the University of Manitoba, believes that while a “world without fossil fuel combustion is highly desirable … getting there will demand not only high cost but also considerable patience: coming energy transitions will unfold across decades, not years.”

Smil’s point can be proven by looking at oil’s share of U.S. primary energy consumption. According to the EIA, in 1949, oil provided 37 percent of America’s total energy needs. In 2009, oil’s share of U.S. primary energy stood at … 37 percent. Over the past six decades, uncounted billions of dollars have been spent on efforts to reduce our need for oil, yet petroleum has been remarkably persistent. Conspiracy theorists will, of course, blame Big Oil. But the conspiracy wasn’t hatched in Houston or Detroit. It’s a conspiracy of basic physics. Love it or hate it—and all of us love what oil provides even as we are continually taught to hate the oil companies—oil is a miraculous substance.

If petroleum didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale. Electric vehicles may be the celebrity car du jour, but modern batteries are only slightly better than the ones that Thomas Edison developed. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries.

A final point on energy transitions. Believe it or not, in 2009, renewable energy sources had a smaller share of U.S. primary energy than they did back in 1949. Sure, wind and solar have grown dramatically in recent years, but in 1949, renewables—almost all of it hydropower—provided 9.3 percent of the country’s energy needs. In 2009, renewables—again, much of it supplied by hydropower—provided 8.2 percent of U.S. energy.

The third issue—scale—is seldom discussed. And for many people, it’s likely the most difficult issue to comprehend. There’s little mystery as to why that is so. We use a googolof units to measure energy: Oil is sold in barrels, tons, gallons, and liters. Natural gas is measured and sold in cubic meters, millions of Btus, therms, dekatherms, and cubic feet. Coal comes in long tons and short tons, but its pricing depends on myriad other factors, including heat content, ash content, sulfur content, and most important: the distance between the coal mine and the power plant. Electricity is sold in kilowatt-hours but electricity terminology spans other units like volts, amperes, and ohms. Add in joules, watts, ergs, calories, and Btus, and things get even more complicated.

We need a simpler measure for global energy use, which now totals about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. That sum is almost impossible to comprehend, but try thinking of it this way: It’s approximately equal to the total daily oil output of 29 Saudi Arabias. (Since 1970, Saudi Arabia’s oil production has averaged 8.2 million barrels per day.) And of those 29 Saudi Arabias, 25—about 210 million barrels of oil equivalent—come from hydrocarbons.

Furthermore, over the past decade alone, global energy consumption has increased by about 27 percent, or six Saudi Arabias. Nearly all of that new energy came from hydrocarbons.

Scientists and policymakers can claim that carbon dioxide is bad. We can talk about wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, and lots of other forms of energy production. But the question that too few people are willing to ask is this one: Where, how, will we find the energy equivalent of 25 Saudi Arabias and have it all be carbon-free?

The hard reality is that we won’t. The Saudis have invested hundreds of billions of dollars over the past few decades drilling wells and building their infrastructure so that they can remain the world’s most important oil exporter. And remember that all of those billions invested have given them exactly one Saudi Arabia, or about 3.4 percent of total global energy demand.

Taken together, the countries of the world have invested trillions of dollars in the energy- and power-delivery systems now in place. Smil explains this succinctly in his 2008 book,Global Catastrophes and Trends. “There is no urgency for an accelerated shift to a non-fossil fuel world: the supply of fossil fuels is adequate for generations to come; new energies are not qualitatively superior; and their production will not be substantially cheaper.”

Smil’s point about “cheaper” also affects the other issues at hand: the pace of energy transitions and scale. The biggest challenge for renewable energy in the United States is not the bad press associated with Solyndra or a lack of federal funding. Instead, it’s the continuing avalanche of cheap natural gas, the fuel that competes most directly with wind and solar energy. Thanks to the shale revolution, which has transformed the U.S. oil and gas sector over the past three years, natural gas is now selling on the spot market at Henry Hub for less than $3.50 per million Btu. In October 2005, that same quantity of natural gas on the spot market was selling for more than $13.

Indeed, the United States now sits atop galaxies of low-cost gas that can be recovered from shale. In April, the Potential Gas Committee, a nonprofit group consisting of academics as well as representatives from government and industry, estimated U.S. gas resources at about 2,170 trillion cubic feet. At current rates of consumption, the United States likely has enough natural gas to last 90 years or more.

Here’s the bottom line: Renewables will remain niche players in the global energy mix for decades to come. The past—and the foreseeable future—still belong to hydrocarbons. And we can expect natural gas, the cleanest of the hydrocarbons, to garner a bigger share of the global energy pie in the near term and in the long term.

为何近期内石油被新能源不会被取代？

（文／曼哈顿研究所的高级研究员 Robert Bryce）要说过去 10 年里面最主要的环境问题，很简单——气候变暖，一直以来都没有变过。再有的话，就是世界各国减少或限制 CO₂ 的排放量。

但就是在这个 10 年间，全球 CO₂ 的排放量大约为 33 亿吨，增长了 28.5％ 。据国际能源机构预计，到 2030 年，全球 CO₂ 排放量还会再增加 21％，上升至约 40 亿吨。

CO₂ 排放量将继续增长，因为工业发展会消耗更多的能源，具体来说是更多的碳氢化合物，例如煤炭、石油和天然气。许多理想化的环保主义者以及一些决策者认为我们应该停止使用碳基燃料，转向一个只使用可再生能源的全球经济。不过，我们不得不接受的现实是：碳氢化合物不可能被取代。

碳氢化合物将继续主导未来几十年全球能源结构的原因有三：成本、能源转化的步伐缓慢，以及能源的度量。

可再生能源造价高昂

第一个原因解释起来相对简单。全球能源行业是迄今为止世界上最大的产业，每年花费在寻找、改善以及提供给消费者各种形式能量的资金投入就超过了 5 万亿美元。风能与太阳能等可再生能源有它们的优势，但从经济上讲是不能跟碳氢化合物相比的。

据美国能源情报署（ Energy Information Administration, EIA ）最近的一项分析估计，由陆上风力涡轮机进行的风力发电，成本是 97 美元／兆瓦时，约为天然气产生同等电量所耗成本（EIA估计 63 美元／兆瓦时）的 1.5 倍以上。海上风力发电更贵，成本为 243 美元／兆瓦时。最便宜的一种太阳能发电——光伏电池板发电，成本为 210 美元，比燃烧天然气发电耗资的 3 倍还多。

社会的能源转换是一项长期进程

可再生能源若真能做到比碳氢化合物便宜很多，那或许我们还可以对它将来在全球能源结构中占有较大比重保持乐观。但即便如此，我们的能源结构发生整体变化还需要很长的时间。对能源问题多有著述的马尼托巴大学（ University of Manitoba ）特聘教授瓦茨拉夫 · 斯米尔（ Vaclav Smil ）在 2008 年的时候写道：“所有的能源转换都有一个共同点：它们都是耗时数十年的长期进程。”

确实，在《独立宣言》签署后的 109 年时间里，美国能源的主要来源一直是木材，直到 1885 年被煤炭赶超。煤炭的王者地位一直维持到 1950 年，后又被石油所取代。斯米尔还写道， “现行能源的使用规模越大、替代能源的转换规模越大，更替的时间将越长。” 斯米尔认为，虽然 “不燃烧化石燃料的社会是很理想……然而要发展到那一步，不仅要花相当高的成本，也需要足够多的耐心：未来的能源过渡将会跨越数十年，而不是仅仅在几年之内展开。”

能源问题专家，瓦茨拉夫 · 斯米尔（左）在能源问题上多有著述。这里列出了其中的两部，中间一本是 2008 年出版的《全球性灾难和趋势》（Global Catastrophes and Trends），右边是 2010 年出版的《能源神话与现实：能源政策辩论的科学解析》（Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate）

碳氢化合物的强大优势

斯米尔关于“［成本］更低” 的观点可以通过比较石油在美国主要能源消费中所占的份额找到证明。据 EIA 估计， 1949 年的时候，石油在美国能源总需求中所占比重为 37％ 。 2009 年，这一数字保持不变。也就是说，过去 60 年以来，为了减少对石油的依赖，我们砸了几十个亿的美元进去，但石油的地位岿然不动。当然了，阴谋论者这时候肯定会把矛头对准石油寡头。可实际上根本不存在什么阴谋，石油的物理性质本就如此。石油是种神奇的物质：无论你爱也好、恨也罢，我们都喜欢石油带给我们的东西，哪怕心里一直想着该恨那些石油公司。

如果没有了石油，我们还不得不把给它造出来。要论能量密度、使用方便，适用场合、运输容易，成本低廉、储量丰富，没有什么能比得过石油。电动汽车可谓时下话题的焦点，不过现在的电池也就是比爱迪生做出来的强一点儿。最好的锂离子电池，能量密度也只有汽油的 1 / 80 。

最后再补充一点。不管你信不信，2009 年，可再生能源在美国主要能源的供能比重跟 1949 年相比，还有所下降。风能和太阳能最近几年确实有大幅度的增长，但在 1949 年，可再生能源（基本上是水力发电）为全美提供了能源需求的 9.3％ 。 2009 年，可再生能源（大部分依然是水力发电）为全美供能 8.2％ 。

来源：Moore's Curse and the Great Energy Delusion | The American

原油：全球能耗的统一度量

第三个问题——能源的度量——极少有人讨论。对很多人来说，这可能是理解起来最棘手的一点。这么说并不不奇怪，看看我们常用的那些能源度量单位吧：石油论桶、吨、加仑和升出售；天然气按立方米、立方英尺、英热单位（ BTU ）及其他单位来测量和销售；煤炭分长吨和短吨（ 1 吨 [t] = 1000 千克 [kg] = 1.102 短吨 [ sh.ton ] = 0.934 长吨 [ long.ton ] ），但其价格取决于一大堆其他因素，包括热含量、灰分、硫含量，以及最重要的：煤矿和电厂之间的距离；电力销售按 （千瓦 / 时） 计算， 牵涉的术语面更广，包括伏特、安培、欧姆，还有焦耳、瓦、尔格、卡路里和英热单位，事情变得愈发复杂。

我们需要一个更简便的方法来衡量全球的能源消耗量——目前大约是每天 2.41 亿桶原油。这相当于沙特阿拉伯日产原油量总额的 29 倍。其中，有25个（相当于大约 2.1 亿桶原油）是碳氢化合物提供的。

此外，仅在过去的 10 年中，全球能源消耗已大约增加了 27 个百分点，或者说 6 个沙特阿拉伯的原油日产量。这些增加的能源消耗几乎全部是由碳氢化合物所提供的。

沙特阿拉伯的加瓦尔场油田（Ghawar field），推算储油量约 850 亿桶原油（来源：dailymail.co.uk）

科学家和决策者可以说 CO₂ 不好。我们可以谈风能、太阳能、地热能、氢气以及许多其他形式的能源生产。但少人愿意问及的是：我们要在哪里，用什么方法找到相当于 25 个沙特阿拉伯输出的能量，而且还是无碳的？

残酷的现实是，我们不会。过去几十年间，沙特投资超过数千亿美元用于钻井和修建基础设施，以确保他们世界第一石油出口国的地位。不要忘了，所有这些投进去的美元也让他们产生了对能源的需求，正好是一个沙特阿拉伯的日产能量，约占全球能源需求的 3.4 ％。

两者加起来，世界各国都投入万亿美元的能源和电力传输系统已经到位。对此，斯米尔在他 2008 年出版的《全球性灾难和趋势》（ Global Catastrophes and Trends ）一书中进行了概括， “不存在加速转向非化石燃料社会的紧迫性：地球上的化石燃料供应充足，几个世代都用不完；新能源在性能上并不具有优越性，新能源的生产成本也不会大幅下降。”

实际上，美国现在脚底下就踩着用都用不完的低成本 页岩气 （天然气的一种）。 2011 年 4 月，据美国潜在天然气委员会（ Potential Gas Committee, PGC，是一个由学界、政府及产业界人士组成的非营利性组织）估计，美国大约存有 2170 兆立方英尺的天然气资源。按照目前的消耗速度来计算，美国存有的天然气足够用上 90 年或更久。

总而言之，在接下来的几十年时间里，可再生能源在全球能源结构中仍将处于比重极小的一部分。在可以预见的未来，碳氢化合物将继续保持当前的主导地位。而天然气，碳氢化合物中最清洁的一种，则会在短期内争取做大，并最终占有全球能源蛋糕的更大份额。

本文编译自曼哈顿研究所的高级研究员 Robert Bryce 的科技评论 Don't Count Oil Out 原文 2011 年 10 月 14 日刊于网络杂志Slate 的新科技频道“Future Tense”。 Slate Magazine 是美国华盛顿邮报公司下属的一本以评论时事、文化为主的网络杂志。Future Tense 频道关注新科技，探讨新兴技术对社会、政策以及文化的影响。