A Carbon Tax on Me: How to Cut Emissions, Save Money, Invest for the Future and Help End Energy Poverty

Amidst  politics, hyperbole, gridlock, bipartisanship, skepticism, cynicism, advocacy and denial, we as individuals can feel powerless in making a substantial difference in the world in which we live. Yet each of us can contribute to solving issues which matter most to us. Take, for example,  energy and climate change, key issues facing billions of people around our planet today.

The people of the world need energy. More than a million new potential energy consumers are added to the world's population every week. Energy contributes to many aspects of the quality of human lives including longer life spans, reduced infant mortality, improved health, increased education and literacy, increased employment, higher GDP and income per capita and reduced poverty. Energy heats, cools and lights our homes and businesses, and powers our industries and transportation. So, energy has been, is, and will continue to be a force for good.

But the CO2 thing. Not so good.

The problem? The most reliable, affordable and available energy sources, oil, gas and coal, unfortunately produce CO2. Fossil fuels provide us with more than 80 percent of our primary energy supply today. But increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to climate change - the more CO2, the more the atmosphere warms. And resultant climate change brings not only higher temperatures and rising sea level, but health and safety concerns, and potential ecological, social, and economic disruption.

What can an individual do? I'll start with me. What can I do to produce less CO2, while helping develop and deploy cleaner energy sources? How can I do this and save money, while investing for the future, and even creating wealth?

And what can I do in parallel to help alleviate energy poverty around the world.

So, I met with myself in conference last week. A rigorous internal debate ensued, but after much deliberation a clear path forward emerged.

I decided to impose a carbon tax on me. It has all the pain and benefits of of many other taxes except that the collecting agency is me and the beneficiary is the planet, those living in energy poverty - and, also, me.

There are many practical benefits to this carbon tax on me. For starters, I don't need advisors, lobbyists, committee meetings, a majority vote, alignment, buy in, affirmation, or a comment period. My carbon tax choice is independent of politics and political parties.

I can just put it in place and and do it. And so can you. It will reduce our CO2 output and contribute to energy and climate research and help reduce energy poverty. And investment of the proceeds in energy technology, deployment, ideas and innovation will be good for the planet and good for your investment portfolio.

Here is how my carbon tax on me will work.

I'll start with some simple goals:

Cut my CO2 emissions by 10 percent next year and 50% over the next decade through energy efficiency, conservation, lifestyle choices, and implementation of new technologies.

Tax myself with a self-imposed price on carbon, and put those dollars into an investment account that grows in value while helping fund clean energy for the planet future generations will inherit.

Contribute to organizations and institutions helping to reduce energy poverty around the world. Today, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking, with enormous health consequences. Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty.

How to do it:

Step 1: Determine my current CO2 output

Before anything else I need to establish the starting point for my CO2 reduction goals and ultimately the tax I pay. The more CO2 I emit, the higher my carbon tax on me.

I can calculate my personal  CO2 footprint using any number of widely available, free online calculators. Here are links to several good ones. I have purposely chosen sites with varying perspectives:

http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/

http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html#c=waste&p=reduceOnTheRoad&m=calc_currentEmissions

http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

With the help of these calculators (there are many others) in less than 30 minutes I can determine my personal CO2 output in tons per year. The calculators produce a reasonable, fit for purpose estimate. I have found it useful to cross check my calculations and assumptions using more than one of the calculators.

Using these carbon footprint calculators not only gives me the numbers to use for my carbon tax on me but increases my awareness of opportunities for reducing emissions ( for example reducing air travel by 2 round trip flights a year from New York to Los Angeles is about the same CO2 savings achieved as by driving a high (40 mpg) vehicle versus an SUV ( 15 mpg) for a year).

As might be expected, the calculators are most sensitive to where you live ( heating or cooling requirements), the size of the house you live in, the source of most of your electricity ( for example coal versus gas versus nuclear vs renewables), the number of miles you travel in your vehicle and the miles per gallon equivalence of that vehicle, how much you fly, how you manage recycling,  and whether you include a lot of meat or local produce in your diet.

Using the calculator, I have determined that my CO2 output is presently well above the US national average and very significantly above the average for the EU and China. I suspect yours may be too. There is lots of room for improvement. For reference,  the CO2 emissions per capita in the US are around 17 tons CO2  per annum and the EU and China emissions per capita are around 7 tons CO2 per annum.

Step 2: Establish a carbon reduction target

My aim in reduction of my CO2 footprint is to have a target that exceeds that of most government mandates or aspirations - to get ahead of the curve. And to start now and at a pace that will make a difference. I also want the target to be realistic and achievable. My goal of a 10 percent reduction in year one and cutting my emissions in half over the next decade achieves these objectives. You might choose a more conservative goal, especially if your CO2 emissions are already  low (for example in the range of the current EU average) or more aggressive if your emissions are especially high. I plan to review my target range annually.

There are many ways I might achieve a reduction in my CO2 emissions - from obvious zero cost conservation measures (lower the thermostat, turn off some lights etc), to deployment of readily available video technologies to reduce business air travel, to choosing lower impact travel alternatives to flying, to capital investment in energy efficiency measures and renewable energy for the home, to lifestyle choices in diet and waste management, to choice of vehicles. I could move to France and take advantage of nuclear power, or Iceland for hydro and geothermal, but that's unlikely to happen. More realistically, I might choose lower CO2 energy options if available from my power company, like wind and solar, or natural gas versus coal. (It would be great to have the option of affordable coal with CCS). For some useful lists of CO2 reduction measures each of us can take see the carbon calculator links above. The following websites also offer practical advice, again from a variety of perspectives.

http://m.wikihow.com/Reduce-Your-Carbon-Footprint. Practical guide.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html.  Good general overview of emission sources

http://www.carbonfund.org/reduce. Website includes offset options.

http://cotap.org/reduce-carbon-footprint/.  Website includes offset options


Step 3:  Apply a price for carbon to my CO2 output and determine my annual carbon tax on me.

I will impose a personal carbon price of $40 per ton CO2 per year on myself. Note that this is well above the price of carbon as traded anywhere in the world. The goal is to help provide an incentive to help me reduce my CO2 output. Why $40 per ton? As a benchmark, $40 sits towards the upper end of the reported price range of companies disclosing their internal carbon prices ($6-7 per ton CO2 at Microsoft, $10-$20 at Walt Disney, $14 at Google, $34 at Total, $40 at Shell and BP, and $60 a ton at Exxon Mobil to name a few) and is also well within the EPA and other federal agency range of estimates for the social cost of carbon ($12 -$61 per ton CO2 depending on the discount rate). I will revisit my carbon price each year to determine if adjustments are needed.

In application then, I simply multiply my carbon price times my calculated CO2 emissions to arrive at the annual carbon tax.

Some useful benchmarks on how much this tax will be:

Per capita CO2 emissions in the US  have fallen from around 20 tons of CO2 per year in 2000 to around 17 tons today, thanks largely to natural gas displacing coal for power, but also increased energy efficiency, and an increase in renewable energy. At 17 tons CO2 per annum  and $40 per ton CO2, the carbon tax is $680.

For people living in very cold or hot climates (I live in Wyoming and Houston for example ), who commute or often travel large distances, who fly frequently, whose electricity comes largely from coal, who drive trucks or SUVs, or who live in larger than average houses it is not difficult to double the average US per capita emissions.  You can check the sensitivities yourself with the calculators. Presently I am well above the current U.S. per capita average (as are many of you reading this) and my carbon tax will far exceed $680 per year. As I said, improvement are needed.

I recognize that a carbon tax of the magnitudes illustrated above would be very difficult to afford for many people, even if the goal is to save the tax and invest the money.  You can't save what you don't have. Energy savings of the kind I described in step 1 above may help somewhat here, with the energy cost savings each year used to significantly offset the carbon tax.

Some cost saving examples:
If you drive 15000 miles per year in a vehicle that gets 20 mpg and drive 10% percent fewer miles next year, you will save around $225 at $3.00 per gallon gas.
You could complement these savings by trading in your low MPG vehicle for a high MPGe vehicle achieving 40 MPGe and save around $1125 dollars each year.
If your average monthly electricity bill is $250, a 10 percent reduction in your power consumption alone will save $300 per annum.
If you fly just one fewer long round trip airplane flight per year that will save you at least $750.

These examples alone would add up to $2400 in cost savings while reducing energy consumption and CO2 output. $2400 is equivalent to a carbon tax on  60 tons of CO2 at a carbon price of $40 per ton per annum. The potential for significant offset of the carbon tax is clear. With strong energy conservation and efficiency measures you can save money and in some cases may actually come out ahead.

Still, the goals of my proposed carbon tax do not include being an economic burden on people or dragging down the economy. If the carbon tax is too high for your budget, consider a lower carbon price. CO2 in California currently trades at around $12 per ton. You might start there.  Or go with Microsofts's $6 per ton. The choice is yours. But start somewhere and start now. The planet will be better off.

Step 4:  Save and Invest the tax proceeds

Which brings us to what will I do with these tax proceeds and cost savings? Invest!  As with any investment you can choose between many options, but I will narrow it down to four.  Should you decide to join me in this effort, what you do with your investment fund is up to you - but hopefully your choice  will help to reduce CO2 output, spur research, development and deployment of new cleaner energy technologies and alleviate energy poverty.  The investment  of the carbon tax proceeds in Options 1 and 2 below can also create personal wealth, spur economic growth and create jobs. Option 3 helps you directly save energy and also provides jobs and is good for the economy,  and provides cost savings for future investment use. Option 4 is more philanthropic and simply helps improve the lives of billions of people on our planet.

Investment Option 1: Invest in companies that produce and deploy  products and services and have developed technologies available now to reduce our carbon footprint - solar solutions, efficient wind turbines, high MPGe vehicles, storage, grid and off-grid solutions, and local produce to name but a few. In my portfolio mix, for pragmatic reasons, I include companies with interests in natural gas and nuclear energy, both of which contribute significantly to reduction in CO2 while providing affordable large scale energy, and CCS which is vital towards meeting CO2 reduction targets given the continued increase in demand for fossil fuels.

The choice of what to include in your portfolio is up to you. In addition to investing in individual companies, there are many high quality Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) funds and Clean/ Renewable/ Alternative Energy funds available that may fit your investment needs.

Investment Option 2: Invest in Research and Development with institutions, organizations and companies doing high quality basic and applied research in science and engineering directly related to energy and climate. We need massive investments in R&D to help solve the climate/energy dilemma: Research in materials science, new energy technologies from solar to nuclear, in carbon capture, storage and usage, in energy distribution and logistics and storage, in urbanization and transportation, in innovative solutions for infrastructure.

Continued research in climate change impact and mitigation is also necessary to get ahead of the curve on mitigation to the extent possible.

Investment in companies focused primarily on research in very early stage emerging technologies adds a higher risk, higher return component to your portfolio. As in oil and gas exploration and such industries as biotech, dry holes and failure are to be expected, but success case payout can be high.  Investment in research institutions and organizations will not likely provide immediate and direct returns, but may be viewed as seed capital for incipient technologies with future potential for clean energy investment.

Investment Option 3: Invest directly in the products and services created by the companies described in Option 1. Buy solar panels for your home, participate in distributed energy systems, purchase a hybrid or an electric vehicle, support local foods, install efficient lighting. There are many options which will help you save energy and money.

Investment Option 4: Invest in organizations which help alleviate energy poverty around the world. The world needs energy now, especially in poverty, famine and disease stricken places like sub-Saharan Africa.  Every contribution helps.

I will hold myself accountable for funding these investments each year and tracking their performance. These investments, funded by my carbon tax on me as well as by energy cost savings, are an investment in our future.

I welcome ideas for improvement on my carbon tax on me.  Those of you working as investment advisors and analysts, as experts in SRI funds or as financial planners and portfolio managers are well positioned to help clients and customers establish and maintain a low carbon investment account as part of their portfolios.  Corporate retirement plans might consider a simple low carbon fund as an employee savings option, with a corporate match. The government might think about a low carbon Individual Retirement Account - call it a Carbon Retirement Plan.  Companies might implement programs incorporating some of the basic elements and steps of the carbon tax on me proposal outlined above. Microsoft has instituted an excellent program which may serve as a useful template.

Make A Difference

Imagine if a thousand people concerned about energy and climate initiated their own personal carbon tax, as I have done with my carbon tax on me. Imagine if they achieved a fifty percent CO2 reduction in a decade and invested in options like those described above. Then multiply that by a thousand people. Or ten thousand! And more. Imagine if businesses and institutions did the same, scaling their carbon tax plans in ways that provided the greatest impact, while lowering energy costs and enhancing efficiency. Imagine the energy savings and the research investments in cleaner energy, the improved lives of people living in energy poverty, and the opportunities for creating wealth and investing in our future.

Each of us can make a difference. How much of a difference is up to me and up to you. Collectively the impact can be massive. Join me now by posting your personal pledge at #carbontaxonme  and copy me @lawrence_energy and we'll track our momentum together. I've copied a generic version of my #carbontaxonme pledge below. Send this blog to your family, friends and colleagues and invite them to join us and post their pledge at #carbontaxonme.

Better to act when you can than when you must. Amazing what an individual can do and what influence you can have. Let's watch our contributions add up.

-------------------

The Carbon Tax on Me Pledge

I pledge to join #carbontaxonme  and cut my CO2 emissions, save energy and money, invest for the future and help end energy poverty.

Global Energy Security: No Time for Energy Complacency Part 2

     
    Recent world events highlight the criticality of a diverse, dispersed, affordable and available energy supply to meet growing energy demands. Dependence on a single source of energy, a single supplier, or a single geography drives instability and insecurity. Geopolitical constraints in a tight market create unwelcome volatility and can create undesirable leverage to those wielding control over supplies. The complacency with which many view our energy supply quickly evaporates when that supply is threatened.

    Energy optionality requires decades to construct ( see No Time for Energy Complacency http://theenergycollective.com/david-lawrence/449261/no-time-energy-complacency  and Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html) Forward looking countries recognize this, and act accordingly. While recognizing the need for research, innovation and investment in renewable energy to build additional energy capacity and critical mass, these countries take an approach based on current realities and also invest significantly in gas, oil, coal and nuclear – while simultaneously seeking solutions to manage emissions and CO2.  An “eithor / or”  single-issue strategy for energy supply reduces optionality and energy security; an “and” strategy increases both. It's time to take a more inclusive and pragmatic approach to the hard decisions on energy policy and energy security.

    In this regards, oil and gas will continue to play a vital role in providing global energy security. Several weeks ago, I posted an article on the world’s current proved oil reserves and their role in meeting the energy needs of people as demand increases and population grows:  http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/reserve-life-resource-life-and-meeting.html  The article was written in response to misleading newspaper headlines  trumpeting, with remarkable precision, that we have only 53.3 years of oil left.  The accuracy is a bit off. The headline number ( not the conclusion) was based on information provided in BP’s 2014 Annual Statistical Review  and was derived by dividing global proved reserves by the projected production rates of oil.

    Fortunately, proved reserves are just part of the resource story.  They neglect oil and gas yet to be discovered and new plays. Proved reserves are, in part, a function of the price of oil – if oil prices drop and costs remain the same then fewer resources can be recovered economically at that price, and, hence, by definition, fewer proved reserves. Conversely if prices rise or costs drop then proved reserves can increase. And proved reserves are only a portion of ultimate recoverable resources in and around already discovered fields. Advancements in exploration, drilling, completion, development and production technologies continue to add resources during the lifetime of a field or play. The rule is:  Big fields get bigger. And as the resource base grows, the resource life is extended. So, it's probably a bit premature to say we only have a half century of oil left. And it would be misguided to base any policies on this assertion.

   The challenge for oil and gas and energy security though is not so much the total proved reserves or resource base remaining in the earth  - it's the geography of those resources and the pace at which they can be delivered as demand increases. There are ( at least) seven components which could contribute to tension on this supply side of the equation over the next decade and undermine energy security globally, even while production levels in the US reach record levels: 1) production decline rates of existing fields,  2) the pace of unconventional resource development internationally, 3) continual project delays from some of the worlds largest oil and gas developments, 4) smaller global discovery volumes,  5) capital availability and investment levels, 6) Black Swan events  and 7) geopolitical and social disruption impact on exploration and production in major energy producing regions.

1. Decline rates for conventional fields, (albeit poorly understood for some of the worlds larger fields, (which is itself a concern) ) average somewhere around 6 percent. And unconventional oil and gas wells have very rapid decline rates in the first year or two of production, requiring continual drilling to replenish the supply and arrest the decline. To offset these declines and accomodate growth in demand in developing countries, in the next decade the  world will need about 40 million barrels per day of new oil production on stream, much of it from fields that haven’t been developed yet, along with volumes obtained through massive investment in field redevelopment and production optimization. That’s equivalent to about four times the current production of Saudi Arabia and more than twice the US daily crude consumption.   It's a staggering amount of new oil to develop, produce and deliver. If decline rates are actually higher, or if some of the worlds super giant fields begin to struggle, the task will be that much greater.

2. While unconventional resources in North America are adding significantly to reserves, resources and production (with the US now assuming the leadership role in oil and natural gas liquids as well as gas), the pace of unconventionals growth elsewhere continues to languish. Challenges in infrastructure, logistics, technical and operational resources, regulations and policy still need to be overcome. The oil and gas resource is there – in geologic basins in Argentina, Russia, China, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. The real supply side questions in the next 10 years will be whether the operational and commercial  pace of exploration, development and production of the unconventional resources internationally will meet the anticipated demand requirements in a timely and economic manner and how long political and regulatory restrictions delay the exploration and evaluation of resources.

Globally, unit costs for development of unconventional oil and gas exceed those in the US, driven largely by supply chain, logistics and infrastructure limitations. Drilling and hydraulic fracking policies in the face of environmental and social concerns have shut down or delayed exploration in several plays in places like France, Germany and South Africa.  Mineral ownership internationally is typically controlled by the state, compromising the private entrepreneurial incentive present in many locales in the US where mineral rights may be held privately ( although this may be turned to an advantage should governments assume an advocacy role). The engineering and operations learning curve for unconventional gas and oil is still in its infancy in many international plays. Rigs and fracking equipment and supplies are often costly, and few and far between. In many places, there is no oil and gas infrastructure to build on. And uncertainty in policy and regulations or legislative action can lead to extensive delays. For these reasons, a time lag of at least several years in significant production for international unconventional plays should be expected, and the pace of production growth is not likely to approach that of the US, at least in this decade.

3. While there has been some success in project delivery in places like the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico ( which again have infrastructure, logistics and resource advantages)  many major projects, critical to replacing production, face ongoing delays and cost escalation, from the giant Kashagan project in the Caspian, to the pre-salt in Brazil, to Gorgon in Western Australia, to the recovery and development of the large Iraqi oil fields, to exploration and development projects across the Arctic. Each delay in production, while not in itself of major significance, cumulatively create short term and potentially costly tensions in supply scenarios.

4. Conventional oil and gas discovery volumes are getting smaller. According to IHS, the 2013 global oil discovery volume of 13 Bbbl of oil was the lowest it has been since 1952, the number of new field discoveries has fallen by 50%  and the average exploration  success rate is now below 15%. The impact of this on current production is of course not immediate. It can take 5-10 years or more to bring a discovery in a remote region with little infrastructure to first production.  To be sure there have been some strong exploration bright spots and exploration discovery volumes are historically lumpy. But pressures on timeliness of production will continue to mount over the next decade if conventional exploration performance does not improve.

5. The oil and gas industry is a capital intensive business. According to the US EIA, major oil companies major uses of cash( capital spending, dividends, buy backs) this past year totaled $677 billion. The gap between cash from operations and major uses of cash has widened in recent years from a low of $18 billion in 2010 to $100 billion to $120 billion during the past three years. Many companies have been reducing their capital expenditures after a period of significant growth over the last decade. While in the short term this reduction may result in greater focus, more efficient capital deployment and higher returns on capital, if the trend continues, discoveries volumes,  development projects and ultimately  production will lag.

6. The potential for  Black Swan events ( major spills, massive shutdowns etc), whether caused by natural disasters, human error, equipment malfunction, malicious intent or otherwise, while extremely remote, can never be completely and absolutely eliminated. Industry and regulators have done much to improve safety management systems and processes, strengthen competencies, add resources, and provide additional and redundant hardware and inspections. Still, should such an event occur in a prolific hydrocarbon basin, supply disruptions could be significant.

7. Despite the wishes of some, geology does not respect political boundaries. Many areas of large potential eithor are in areas of turmoil or political sensitivity ( e.g. Iraq,  Kurdistan and parts of North Africa, Nigeria, and South China Sea), or require transport of resources across such areas  (e.g. Russia and Ukraine). You can't explore when you’re at war. Other potentially prolific areas, like the Arctic, already facing considerable logistical and development challenges, are continually delayed by regulatory, legal, legislative and political action.  Massive resources in Canadian oil sands await resolution of pipeline issues in the US even while alternative transport solutions are implemented. War, civil unrest, terrorist acts, geopolitical strife, and social and environmental concerns have always been a component of the supply/demand equation, but as demand grows and supply tightens, the ability to accommodate disruptions diminishes. The world has been very fortunate that reductions in oil supply in the Mideast this past year have been offset by increases in unconventional light tight oil and gas in the US.

     Why raise these concerns at a time of significant growth in US oil and gas supply? Certainly there is supply upside too, as best demonstrated by the shale gas and tight oil revolution in the US.  There will be other new plays still just a glimour in a geologist’s eye. Global oil and gas demand may decrease below that of envisioned scenarios through vastly accelerated disruptive deployment of alternative energy technologies or by sustained weak economic growth.

    Still, today, over 55 percent of the worlds primary energy consumption is oil and natural gas and demand continues to grow, driven by emerging economies and the increased use of gas in power generation. The global energy supply of that oil and gas  (which so many take for granted, and which some would want to see curtailed or even abandoned), does not come easily or in one smooth upward trending planning curve. Of course, trading volatility mirrors this reality in the short term. But in planning for energy needs to meet national and global requirements, challenges faced in delivering oil and gas production shouldn’t be dismissed in a time of apparent abundance or misdirected towards discussion of perceived stranded assets. The world will need this base load of global energy to feed, clothe, shelter, transport, care for and educate a population that will grow at an average rate of well over a million people per week until the middle of this century. Energy drives our economies and our lifestyle and is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty: for schools, farms, businesses, hospitals, and industry – and to meet basic needs.

     Energy policies forged in times of crisis are typically too little and too late. Pragmatic policies that encourage access, investment, innovation, technology development and deployment across all energy sectors, including oil, gas, renewables, nuclear and coal will be essential to provide energy security and meet the energy needs of people everywhere, while managing emissions and CO2. Better to act when you can than when you must.

No Time for Energy Complacency

The United States produced 11 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids per day in the first quarter of 2014,  overtaking Saudi Arabia as the number one producer in the world. Already, in 2010, the US had made its mark as the number one producer of natural gas. This enormous accomplishment, unthinkable just a decade ago, was a product of  technical, operational and commercial tenacity and innovation, coupled with the efforts of a skilled and available workforce, a solid supply chain foundation, the availability of capital and a fiscal and mineral ownership system that incentivizes production.

Meanwhile, this past year,  the world’s reserve base continued to grow,  even while demand continued to increase. According to the BP Statistical Review of 2014, global oil reserves rose by 600 million barrels to 1,688 billion barrels in 2013, an increase of 27% over a decade earlier, despite cumulative production of 332 billion barrels during this same period. Gas reserves grew by 19%,  while production grew by 29%. Resource growth was enabled by unconventional oil and gas success, engineering innovation, delivery of new projects, successful new exploration plays, technical advancements across the entire exploration and production value chain, significant investment over the past decade and improved access to prospective basins.

Global energy consumption growth also accelerated in 2013, from 1.8 percent to 2.3 percent, slightly below the 10 year average growth rate of 2.5 percent.  BP’s annual review revealed that consumption and production increased for all fuels, reaching record levels for every fuel type except nuclear power. Somewhat alarmingly, for all fossil fuels,  global consumption rose more rapidly than production.

Still, with all the success in adding resources and production, and even with significant progress in renewables, it's no time for energy complacency.

Today, some see a future with so much oil and gas resource, and so little need for that resource given its carbon footprint, that trillions of dollars of carbon-rich assets will be left stranded.  Perhaps. But such scenarios heavily discount some elements of current reality: the dominance of oil, gas and coal in today's energy use ( more than 80% of primary energy consumption), the future energy needs of people in undeveloped countries striving to lift themselves from energy poverty ( 1.3 billion people today have no access to electricity), the magnitude of new oil and gas resources required to simply replace existing production decline in developed fields ( ~ 6% per year), and the growth of existing economies and emerging economies built on affordable, available and reliable energy.

World energy demand is likely to increase by around 40% in the next two decades, driven largely by the needs of emerging economies, and despite the best efforts of conservation and energy efficiency.  All energy sources will be required to meet this demand. Energy scenarios which minimize the role of oil, gas,  coal and nuclear to help meet these needs require a rate of market penetration of renewable energy at an unprecedented pace. Even with the welcome possibility of disruptive technologies, breakthrough acceleration of market share for renewable energy is an especially challenging task given 1) the enormity of the global energy scale, 2)  the incumbency and residency times  of planes, trains, automobiles, ships, trucks, heavy equipment, power plants, furnaces, smelters, factories, homes, hospitals, schools, businesses and infrastructure already in place relying on fossil fuels, 3) the magnitude of projects currently under construction ( for example, 1900 coal-power plants planned around the globe), 4) the often lower economic returns of renewable projects relative to other investment opportunities and consequent difficult availability of  large amounts of capital and 5) the low operational and high retirement costs for already built assets. For these reasons (and cost, availability and reliability)  the demand for fossil fuels today is increasing, not decreasing worldwide.

Massively increased research, innovation and investment across the entire energy sector  – solar, wind, battery storage, hydrogen,  coal ( clean coal, CCS), oil, gas and, yes, nuclear – is essential to meet the energy needs of our growing population while reducing the carbon footprint of that necessary energy. Energy pragmatism also helps. Low carbon scenarios become more plausible  when they embrace technologies like CCS and clean coal and step changes in energy efficiency. The scenarios gain more substance when natural gas is considered a key component of the solution rather than a problem, and the revitalization of nuclear power is again placed in the mix. And every new technology and breakthrough in renewable energy implemented on a commercial scale and providing cost competitive power to consumers provides more credibility and momentum than a hundred op-eds. We should support these efforts through investment.

Given the ever expanding energy demands of the world’s growing population, and the energy poverty in which so many live, our greatest concern should be the complacency with which so many view our energy supply. If supplies were constricted, whether by choice, depletion, natural or man-made disasters or geopolitics who would  want to have to choose between the energy haves and have nots?

On the demand side, some low carbon scenarios envision startlingly low levels of energy consumption, especially in the developing world.  Currently, the IEA defines “modern energy access” for those living in energy poverty in places like sub-Saharan Africa as 50 to 100 kWh/person/year - almost enough to power a  60W light bulb for five hours per day for a year. The average American would use that much energy in just three days. So, while a laudible first step on the energy ladder, would you want that for your own children?  Clearly, more energy will be required.

Even the IEA low level of modern energy access is considered high by some searching for more pragmatic energy solutions to help those living in energy poverty. In a recent report from the Sierra Club, Clean Energy Services for All (CES4All),  the first tier of energy access provides a person just 10 kWh of electricity per year -  less than 0.1 % of the  average American’s consumption of 13,000 kWh of electricity per year.  Is it realistic or desirable to assume this kind of level of energy use in energy planning? Shouldn’t we aspire for more?

The CES4All report clearly sees 10kWh per person per year as only a starting point  in alleviating energy poverty, recognizing the urgent need for implementing off grid solutions and the limited availability of investment capital. You have to start someplace.  But the point here is that to truly help those most in need will ultimately require significantly more energy – not less.

The people of the world need energy now. Complacency regarding meeting energy resource requirements when and where they are needed should be a greater concern now than concern over such issues as future stranded assets.  The  great challenge across the energy sector will be meeting continually growing demand in a timely fashion, without significant economic and societal disruption, and while reducing CO2.  The next article in this series will take a deeper look into this challenge, starting with oil and gas.

Additional posts on related topics by David Lawrence:

Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html

Who Determines  Energy Haves and Have Nots http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-will-determine-energy-haves-and_23.html

Reserve Life, Resource Life and Meeting World Energy Needs http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/reserve-life-resource-life-and-meeting.htm

Reserve Life, Resource Life and Meeting World Energy Needs

A national newspaper headline this past week stated we have 53.3 years of oil left. The precision is remarkable, but the accuracy is a bit off.

The story was based on information in BP’s 2014 Annual Statistical Review  and was derived by dividing global proved reserves by production rates of oil.

Fortunately, proved reserves are just part of the resource story. They neglect oil and gas yet to be discovered and new plays.  And they are only a portion of ultimate recoverable resources in and around already discovered fields. Advancements in exploration, drilling, completion, development and production technologies continue to add resources during the lifetime of a field or play. The best recent example of this is in unconventional oil and gas: the shale plays, and light tight oil ( for example the growth of the Bakken, Eagleford, Marcellus and Permian). But it's true in conventional fields as well. A prime example is the new Shell Mars B development in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico which recently came on production in the prolific Mars Basin.  The same applies to most of the other big deep water fields around the world as well as the giant fields of the Mideast, the North Slope of Alaska, Latin America and the Far East – in fact most of the largest discoveries of the past century. The rule is:  Big fields get bigger. And as the resource base grows, the reserve base also grows, and both reserve life and the resource life are extended.  History supports this:  Proved reserves have more than doubled since 1980 – even while the world consumed more oil in that time period than it had proved reserves in 1980. 

So, it's probably a bit  premature to say we only have a half century of oil left. To be fair, the newspaper story actually recognized this early on in the body of the article ( and, clearly, the original BP review took the broader view of resource growth and historical increase in reserves.) Hopefully readers made it past the sound byte of the headline.

Why is this important? The world needs energy to feed, clothe, shelter, transport, care for and educate a population that will grow at an average rate of over a million people per week until the middle of this century. Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty: for schools, farms, businesses, hospitals, and industry – and to meet basic needs.

Today in this rapidly expanding world, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking.  The dilemna we face is that under almost any energy scenario, world energy demand will continue to grow at a pace even greater than the pace of population growth – this despite the best efforts of increased efficiency and conservation efforts.

To the  worlds emerging economies and for the livelihoods and health of people around the world, affordable, available and reliable energy is essential.  It is highly likely that, even while renewable energy makes gigantic and welcome strides, at least until the middle of this century the majority of that affordable energy supply will still need to come from oil, natural gas and coal, and as is increasingly evident nuclear.  As I’ve discussed in a previous article, ( see Energy Pragmatism http://lawrence1energy.blogspot.com/2014/06/energy-pragmatism_17.html )  only the most innovative technologies, policies and investments across all energy sectors will allow us to both meet the energy needs of the world and mitigate the impacts of that very energy.

And that's why it's important that we have more than 53.3 years of oil left. And why it's important to read beyond the headlines.

Who will determine energy haves and have nots?

For emerging economies and for the livelihoods and health of people around the world, affordable, available and reliable energy is essential. To meet the rapidly expanding needs of the world’s growing population, people will need all the energy that can be supplied - not as an " all of the above" slogan, but in reality. If choices are ultimately made to limit the supply of some energy sources like fossil fuels or nuclear, who will determine the energy haves and have nots? Most of us would agree that its best not to have to pick winners and losers - who gets to turn on the lights, heat their homes, refrigerate their food, and power their schools, hospitals, businesses, industry and agriculture. 

Ask yourself, if cost competitive CCS, carbon utilization and/or clean coal technology to substantially reduce CO2 emissions were available within the next 5-10 years, doesn't coal become part of the solution? And, if total solar or wind costs drop to parity or near parity with gas, coal and nuclear, and storage, scale and distribution challenges are met,  won't the market move us efficiently to the best answer? Today, we see this happening with the growth of natural gas in the power sector and, increasingly, in the transportation sector.  Solar costs are dropping. And nuclear energy is once again back in the conversation as the need for scale and market penetration becomes increasingly apparent. Pragmatism coupled with innovation changes the game across all energy sectors - and will enable us to meet both energy needs and the challenge of climate change. 

Energy Pragmatism

Energy Pragmatism


By 2050, the earth’s population could grow to 9 billion people,  2 billion more people than today. That averages out to more than a million new people to feed, clothe and shelter every week. And the greatest growth in population comes from many of the least developed nations.  Today, in this rapidly expanding world, 1.3 billion people have no access to electricity, and nearly 900 million still use unsafe drinking water.  More than 2.5 billion people still rely on biomass, like wood and dung, for cooking.  Energy is crucial to lift people from a life of hardship and poverty. Where will this energy come from? And if choices are made, as many advocate,  to limit the supply of energy like fossil fuels or nuclear,  who will determine the energy haves and have nots.

The dilemna we face is that under almost any energy scenario, world energy demand will continue to grow at a pace even greater than the pace of population growth – this despite the best efforts of increased efficiency and conservation efforts.

Most of us would agree that its best not to have to pick winners and losers - who gets to turn on the lights, heat their homes, refrigerate their food, or power their schools and hospitals. To meet the rapidly expanding needs of the world’s growing population in developing nations, not to mention the ongoing demand in places like the US,  China and Europe,  the world will need all the energy that it can get. But the energy so many need comes with trade offs  – CO2, spills, and particulates from fossil fuels, safety and radiation risk from nuclear;  cost, reliability, footprint, and distribution for wind and solar; land use and ecological disruption from hydro. NIMBY for all.  The cheapest sources of energy on a massive scale typically produce the most CO2 -and with that increase in CO2 comes climate change: higher temperatures, sea level rise, shifts in rainfall, droughts, and intensity of storms, and ocean acidification. There is a cost for everything.

To the  worlds emerging economies and for the livelihoods and health of people around the world, affordable energy is essential.  It is highly likely that, even while renewable energy makes gigantic strides, at least until the middle of this century the majority of that affordable energy supply will still need to come from oil, natural gas and coal, and as is increasingly evident, nuclear.

Why is this?  Be pragmatic.  The massive scale, capital costs,  engineering and construction time, regulatory and infrastructure requirements of major new energy projects,  the long  residence time and economics of existing assets, and the pace of introduction and incremental scale of off grid solutions mean that market penetration of new energy technology operates on a time frame of decades rather than years. An example is LNG, which 50 years after it's introduction in Algeria in 1964 using Shell technology still fills less than 3% of world energy needs.  Significant growth of market share of renewables is difficult when cheaper and more efficient coal, oil and gas continue to be in great demand. Today there are plans for more than 1900 coal fired  power plants around the globe, with the highest pace of construction in China. And it's not just coal where the demand is soaring. In the last decade, China’s gasoline consumption has grown from 0.9 million barrels per day in 2003 to more than 2 million barrels per day in 2013.  

Against that backdrop only the most innovative technologies, policies and investments will allow us to both meet the energy needs of the world and mitigate the impacts of that very energy. We need not only all the energy we can produce and provide, but all the solutions that can be implemented towards reducing  CO2 and other emissions from that energy. What are the requirements? Costs that allow economies to grow at a sustained pace and are competitive with existing energy sources, scale that makes a difference, capital availability for new projects, high environmental, safety, and health standards, and, importantly, a realistic pace for massive implementation and skilled and energized people to make it happen.

In the past decade, natural gas from hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling of shale and tight reservoirs  has been a major technical breakthrough ( preceded by years of trial and failure)  that has met these requirements.  And yet, even this remarkable piece of good news for climate, energy, jobs and the economy continues to face significant challenge from some sectors.

For too long we have been polarized in our views on climate change and energy needs. Regardless of our own personal bias, the world will continue to require energy. And, without extensive mitigation of CO2,  the climate will continue to warm.

Pragmatism coupled with innovation and optimism are strange but necessary bedfellows to meet the worlds energy needs.  For energy pragmatism, fact-based assessments are essential: of demand, of environmental,  economic, political, security, health and climatic impact; of safety, cost, and capital requirements; of scalability,  pace of market penetration, distribution and implementation.  For innovation there are no shortages for projects being worked:  low cost, scaleable solar technologies, breakthroughs in transportation, storage, distribution and electrification, innovative policies, commercial structures, and marketing solutions, novel urban architecture, design and infrastructure, low cost carbon capture, storage and utilization, new oil and gas exploration plays,  advanced drilling and development technologies, a rebirth of safe and efficient nuclear facilities. And much more in all aspects of solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, oil, natural gas and coal.

Pragmatism coupled with innovation changes the game for energy. If you could have efficient carbon capture and storage for coal ( or clean coal) at a cost that is competitive with other energy sources, then imperfect energy sources like coal become part of the solution.  If natural gas continues to lower CO2 emissions at its current pace, and the risks and environmental impacts continue to be managed to high standard,  gas will continue to play a vital role. Have we truly weighed the actual health and safety risks of nuclear energy against those of alternatives and the benefits of scale and pace of implementation? And why wouldn't we all be for solar or wind if the costs can be lowered and reliability improved to be competitive with coal, oil and gas.

A note of optimism:  perhaps it's time to stop myopic thinking about how unique we are as a society in facing the challenges we deal with today and recognize that each generation has similiarly  faced and tackled the issues of their day or their decade – be they famines, plagues, tyranny, oppression, civil wars, westward expansion, world war, industrialization, Dust Bowls, depressions, nuclear threats, Cold Wars, Silent Springs, space exploration, or  revolutions in manufacturing and information technology – to name but a few. Attempts to meet the challenge of energy and climate  may lead to setbacks and to cynicism in some. But others will see enormous opportunities for individuals, business and society.  It's not a time for disengagement and divestment - it's a time for communication, action and investment in ideas and solutions across the entire energy sector.

Welcome to Energy Perspectives

Industry veteran David Lawrence writes about energy and climate issues. His perspective reflects more than 30 years of research, technical and commercial experience in oil, gas, LNG, wind, coal, uranium and finance working across six continents and tempered by roles in academia, government, and industry. Dave is a past Executive Vice President for Shell and currently serves as Chairman of the External Advisory Board for the Yale Climate and Energy Institute. 

Follow Dave on Twitter @lawrence_energy