NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- ExxonMobil delivered its annual long term energy forecast Tuesday, saying that it expects the world will use 60% more energy in 2030 than in did in 2000. But despite this spike in demand, the oil giant does not expect to see any increase in the use of renewable energy sources from 2006 levels.
Exxon (Charts) also said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is expected to soar as a result, but that it would be far cheaper to limit carbon output by regulating power plants instead of vehicles.
Despite supply concerns, the company added that it foresees few problems bringing more oil and gas to market, and that the current price of oil is actually higher than it needs to be to bring oil to market.
America's largest firms pledge to go green
In a presentation to analysts, Jaime Spellings said that worldwide economic growth is expected to outpace Exxon's projected energy demands.
"As the global economy grows, the demand for energy grows," he said. "But the curve is flattening. Developing and adapting energy-efficient technology is crucial."
Spellings singled out the car as one area ripe for more conservation technology, noting that recent advances in fuel economy had been largely offset by gains in vehicle weight.
He said the world would use fossil fuels to meet about 80 percent of its total energy demand in 2030, about the same proportion as today.
Hydro and nuclear power currently make up most of the remaining 20 percent.
Spellings said renewable energy, while growing rapidly, will continue to provide just several percent of the world's total energy needs by 2030.
He referred to slides saying that in 2005 it took 13 percent of the country's corn production to make the ethanol that accounted for just 2 percent of the country's gasoline demand.
He also said that ethanol's lower energy yield makes it generally more expensive than gasoline, even with oil at $60 a barrel.
Spellings said even cellulosic ethanol or ethanol made from sugar cane could not compete with gasoline on a cost basis.
"This provides some perspective on ethanol's prospects as an alternative fuel," he said.
Many people disagree with Exxon's take on renewable energy technologies, and forecast that renewables will make a much bigger contribution to the world's energy mix in the next quarter century.
Exxon and global warming
With rising energy use, Spellings said the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is expected to increase by 1.6 percent annually.
That would be a nearly 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, from current levels.
"Rising CO2 emissions provide risks to society that could prove to be significant," he said.
Spellings again referred to charts showing that the cheapest way to control carbon emissions is through changes at power plants, not vehicles.
The charts said that by 2030 over 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide are expected to come from power plants, while only five billion tons is thought to come from "light duty transport."
Exxon said the cost avoiding a ton of carbon emissions is less than $50 for most using technologies like gas, nuclear or a coal plant that buries its carbon underground as opposed to a conventional coal power plant.
It said saving a ton of carbon by using cellulosic ethanol in light vehicles would cost over $100, while relying on hybrids would cost nearly $250 compared to a standard gasoline engine.
While acknowledging that power plants are indeed a problem, Daniel Becker, the Sierra Club's director for global warming, lambasted Exxon over its reasoning.
"They are using numbers to make a point, and that point is 'don't make us do anything, make others do it first,'" said Becker. "That is a very irresponsible position for the world's largest and most profitable company to take."
Exxon's enthusiasm for renewable energy, at least publicly, has always been a bit more restrained than some of its competitors like BP (Charts) or Royal Dutch Shell. (Charts)
Spellings, in response to a question as to whether he thought the world was moving to mandatory carbon caps, noted that Exxon already deals with mandatory carbon caps in many countries, and that it hasn't been too much of a burden.
Spellings said Exxon didn't buy into the theory of "peak oil," which argues that worldwide production rates are either declining now or will do so very shortly.
"From an engineering standpoint, we are very comfortable with being able to add to the resource base," he said.
The challenge, he said, was more political - getting access to the resources in countries that might have governments hostile to western oil companies.
But he said that Exxon's long term outlook assumes it will be able to get access in a free market system.
________________
money.cnn.com/2006/12/12/news/economy/exxon_outloo...6
madf
|
|
And the answer is ... fusion power. It's just a matter of throwing even more money at it.
|
|
Makes your blood run cold as utterances by these notoriously monstrous organisations always do. But not as cold as it'll run if they don't manage the transition to nuclear properly.
|
|
This country will never have cheap energy, as the youth of today are doing degrees in DJing and Adult Entertainment, not molecular physics and chemistry etc....
|
This country will never have cheap energy, as the youth of today are doing degrees in DJing and Adult Entertainment, not molecular physics and chemistry etc....
>>
Ah come on, engineering is too hard for gods sake !! Media studies is far more doable and important.
(Spoken tongue in cheek of course and as a qualified electronics engineer !)
|
|
|
|
Very interesting article.
I have never seen renewable power as a major source of energy. With demand for energy continually increasing we have to find another source that is reliable and cheap - the only current answer is nuclear power.
The big downside to nuclear power is the bad publicity of Chernoble and Three Mile Island; potential leaks, long term disposal and terrorism. By comparison, there has been so much additional knowledge gained since we last built a reactor, which ultimately will make them far safer than existing ones.
Keeping to a motoring subject, I still believe that hydrogen fuel cell cars are going to be the future for motoring. Small urban cars will likely to be electrically powered with roadside charging bays.
Unless some technological breakthrough occurs that means a new power or fuel source is discovered, and ultimately commercially developed.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
The problem as I recall with hydrogen cells is the costs of genrating and storing liquid hydrogen absorb half the energy costs of the hydrogen. And hydrogen is gaseous form is impractical due to its density... and if you think common rail diesels are complex, they are meccano compared to hydrogen fueld cars. The refuelling mechanism alone will be more complex than common rail and much more expensive due to the need to prevent evaporation of liquid hydrogen (energy loss and eplosion risk).
There is also a very small practical problem. A fuel tank full of liquid hydrogen will empty in 2 days (or less) due to evaporation... So park your car at an airport an dyou'll need a mechanic to restart you..
Yes: reaalllllly challengeing:-)
madf
|
This country will never have cheap energy, as the youth of today are doing degrees in DJing and Adult Entertainment, not molecular physics and chemistry etc....
Nonsense! The young brains of today are still doing physics and chemistry at Oxbridge. The ones who used to become street sweepers are now doing degrees in DJing and AE.... and THEN becoming street sweepers. (That said, the chap who sweeps the street outside my house five days a week has three daughters at university (probably reading DJing), and is owner occupier of a very nice house.)
Worry not about it.
MADF: "A fuel tank full of liquid hydrogen will empty in 2 days (or less) due to evaporation... "
I've worked in labs where we've used hydrogen. And a full bottle of hydrogen will sit there happily for months. What do you mean? Are you building your hydrogen fuel tanks from brown paper and string?
|
Doddington Hall, near Lincoln, recently started using "Biomass" (which is shredded willow saplings) for heating. It no doubt helps that they can afford the new boiler and associated fuel feed system that is necessary, and that they have 600 acres to grow the willow saplings on.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
And the tonnnes of obnoxious fumes bio mass gives of.
|
What about this for in-expensive heating:
www.iceenergy.co.uk/heatpumps.asp
Ice Energy: "Heat pumps work by collecting heat from your garden and moving it into your home - essentially a refrigerator working in reverse. The technology works so well that even when freezing outside - your home is still warm and snug.
Best of all, because you are moving heat, rather than creating it by burning oil or gas, the system is much more efficient with average savings of between 50-70% on your annual running costs."
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
I read a good article this week about thorium reactors which could provide a decent interim measure until fusion reactors are perfected.
On the face of it, it seems too good to be true. Thorium is more stable than plutonium and requires a proton beam to be fired at the fuel to initiate and maintain the reaction, so the reaction is instantly controllable (switch off proton beam, reaction stops instantly). It can incinerate existing nuclear waste (solving one hell of a problem in itself), and produces only 3% of the waste of a conventional plutonium reactor, and the waste has a half life of 500 years, not 250,000 years. Also the waste cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
Oh, and there's apparently enough known thorium to supply the entire world's electricity needs for about 4,000 years. Even the biggest pessimists agree fusion will be online by then. ;-)
I'm sure there are major downsides as well, but it does seem to solve several problems in one go (weapons material, existing waste and power)
Cheers
DP
|
The historical costings for the civilian nuclear power programme in the UK were always nonsense. The magnox stations were essentially factories for bomb material with electricity as a byproduct, but all the maintenance and decommissioning costs have been transferred to the civilian sector. The AGR stations were and probably still are the most efficient power generators in the world ..... when they work properly :-( but the project management at Dungeness B defied belief, primarily as the result of non-engineers meddling. Still, at least we've got lots of North Sea gas to burn ... errr. It was idiotic to burn gas in power stations (particularly for base load) when it could have been made available directly for domestic use, still we won't make that mistake again.
The key is long term planning .... ha!
It has to be fusion, there is nothing else.
And back to cars. I worked at Sellafield many years ago, is the journey over Ryenose and Hardknott the most invigorating commute in the UK?
i44.photobucket.com/albums/f50/isitphotoshop/Wryno...g
|
Micky - I used to go to Sellafield (WAGR actually) a lot and I've got very fond memories of the Corney Fell Road - quick enough to get a real wiggle on, but will humiliate you if you take it for granted.
|
|
|
|
>>Best of all, because you are moving heat, rather than creating it by burning oil or gas, the system is much more efficient with average savings of between 50-70% on your annual running costs.
Talk of reducing CO2 emmissions has been the politcal hot potatoe recently. Lots of talk has been about reducing emmissions from cars, which make up about 20% of all CO2 emmissions. Home heating however accounts for 30% of CO2 emmissions. Greater reduction in CO2 could be achieved with better insulation, more efficient heating methods and lower room temperatures. Although attempts are being made in these areas, little is being done to use heat pumps. Home wind generators and solar panels are being offered by B&Q, but both are very inefficient. By comparison the heat pump is far more efficient, but does have a higher initial cost. If I came into a reasonable sum of money I would not hesitate installing a heat pump based system using a bore hole.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
I think it was this company that as a marketing gimick claim ran it's heating from a block of ice in the garage.
We have recently replaced our boiler for a new modern one, but then came across this, which is a shame as I would've looked seriously at it, but now the money's already spent.
The home wind generators being sold at B & Q, I read/heard, but cannot for the life of me remember where that they need to be mounted in a place where the air flow is not disturbed by other houses or trees etc for them to be efficient, either living on a moor somewhere remote or have it mounted on a 20' pole on the roof of your house.
As I say, I do not know where I read it, so I could be wrong.
Do not know about the solar panels as they are way too pricey for me to look at!!
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
The home wind generators being sold at B & Q ............
Output 1kW at a wind speed of 12.5 m/s.
--
L\'escargot.
|
At least the technology is being developed...
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
>> The home wind generators being sold at B & Q ............ Output 1kW at a wind speed of 12.5 m/s. --
Thats about 28MPH, thats a fairly stiff 'average' wind speed for most inland parts of the country I would have thought.
|
Domestic wind turbines are a complete waste of money. Industrial ones are too, but that's a different thing altogether.
Is that the same B&Q that was trying to get us all to install domestic air con in the summer?
|
I had a good laugh recently when I read that one homeowner bought an expensive windturbine for his home and managed to generate the princely total of 2KW across 3 months, that's enough to run a whole lightbulb for er... less than 24 hours, and less than a quater of what I burn in a single day living on my own. :-)
Blue
|
|
|
|
|
