ENERGY AT THE CROSSROADS:

Global Perspectives and Uncertainties

By Vaclav Smil
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusett
2003, 427 pages,
ISBN 0 2621 9492 9

Smil begins his 18th book on energy by stating that “The most fundamental attribute of
modern society is simply this: ours is a high energy civilization based largely on combustion
of fossil fuels”. This is an emphatic statement if you consider it in light of the threat we face
from global warming largely caused by man’s use of fossil fuels. Smil set out to explore how
we can reconcile our “high-energy civilization” that depends on “unceasing flows of fuels
and electricity” with the the need to preserve the “integrity of of irreplaceable biosperic
services”. This aim was largely achieved in this book. Overall, this is an interesting and well-
written book on energy affairs rich in data, graphic illustrations and references. He cited more
than 700 sources of information of which 32 are his previous works. The references are
detailed with their websites address provided for those interested in verifying any information.
It is good introduction to our energy system of today from a global perspective and its future
prospects.Smil, definitely, has done his “professional homework diligenyly”.This book is
important for every ‘educated’ person interested in issues of global warming, climate change
and future depletion of fossil fuels resources especially academics, students and government
policymakers. I say ‘educated’ because the book’s style and language is a little bit
unnecessarily advanced and this makes it a bit difficult to comprehend.

The subject was comprehensively and extensively covered in the six long chapters of the
book. They are as follows in chronological order: Long-term Trends and Achievements;
Energy Linkages; Against Forecasting; Fossil Fuel Futures; Nonfossil Energies; and Possible
Futures.

Smil begins, in the first chapter, with a historical review of the energy world since the 18 th
century. He described the long term trends and accomplishments in the energy world: rise in
energy consumption, displacement of coal by hydrocarbons (mainly crude oil) as the
dorminant fuel, technical inventions and advances in technical efficiencies that shaped the
energy system, energy transitions, increasing reliance on natural gas, growth of renewables’
‘industry’, historical environmental problems like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
emissions; and particulates from coal plants, etc.

Smil referred to the 20th century as a unique century since the century marked “truly decisive
departures from long-lasting patterns”. The defining difference between our modern society
and preindustrial and traditional societies is the revolutionary large difference in per capita
energy use. For example, the world’s energy consumption rose from 35EJ in 1900 to 400EJ
by the end of the 20th century, a twelve-fold increase. The 20 th century witnessed revolutions
in food production (nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, mechanization), transportation (private
cars, air travel), communication (radio, television, satellites, the Internet).

Smil discusses the enormous regional disparities in energy consumption. The trend is that
most of the world’s energy consumption has been and still is in the few industrially
developed, affluent countries in North America and Europe; Australia and Japan. Presently,
the energy use in developing countries is relatively low and hence anticipated future
expansion in energy use for economic development poses a serious challenge for the
biosphere’s survival.

He describes how the 20th century was shaped by improvements in technical inventions of the
late 1800s like steam engine, electric bulbs, internal combustion engine (ICE), electric motors
and those in the 20th century like gas turbine, rocket engine, nuclear fission PV solar
generation, Aircraft, computers, telecommunications, automation household appliances, and
the Internet.

In chapter 2, Smil explores the linkages between energy use and, level of economic
development, environment, standard of living and war. Although high correlations exist
between “rate of energy use and economic performance”, the relationship is “neither linear
nor does it follow any other easily quantifiable function”. His opinion is that there are no
specific levels of energy use required by countries pursuing identical rates of economic
growth and standard of living. I agree because what matters is the efficient management of
energy resources to reduce wastage. Smil compared between energy use efficiencies of
different countries by formulation energy intensity which he defines as a country’s total
primary energy supply (TPES) divided by the gross domestic product (GDP). EI is a fairly
good indicator of a country’s “economic and technical efficiency as well as its environmental
impact”. Low EI are desirable.

Smil discusses the issue of energy prices and concludes that we do not pay the real price
because the prevailing costs of energy does not include many unquantifiable costs such as
global warming and pollution, health and the military costs for ‘access to oil fields’.
Governments manipulates energy prices , he says, hence consumers do not pay the real price
and this leads to “irrational” use of energy. I totally agree.

On the link between energy use and environmental impacts, Smil illustrates in a revealing
chart (fig 2.15) that despite controls in western Europe and North America, global emissions
of ‘old’ pollutants like sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides continue to rise especially in Asia.
In another impressive chart, he illustrates the sharp increase in carbon dioxide concentrations
in the atmosphere since 1800 to 2000.This is due to our rapid use of fossil fuels. In a sobering
statement, he said, “While higher use of energy may or may not bring desired economic and
personal benefits, it will have one worrisome consequence: greater impact on the
environment”.

Smil says that abundant energy availability has revolutionized war by making it possible to
develop energy-intensive weapons. It would have been impossible to develop ballistic
missiles, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc without abundant energy. Also, access to oil
resources certainly played a major part in the decision to invade Iraq.

In chapter 3, Smil argued forcefully against long-term quantitative forecasts of energy affairs
whether they are concerned with energy production and consumption trends, technical
efficiency improvements of existing conversion techniques or invention and subsequent
commercialization of technologies. His reason: such forecasting have a “manifest record of
failure”. He went further “we should abandon all quantitative point forecasts” because they
are fraught with so much uncertainties that makes them fail, even a few months after they are
made. He reviewed numerous instances of failed forecasts to buttress his point. For example,
Spinrad in 1971 predicted that “by the late 1990s almost 90% of new electrical generating
capacity everywhere except in Africa will be nuclear and that fission will supply over 60% of
the world’s electricity generation” Similar predictions were also made by Glenn Seaborg (a
nobel laureate in 1951) and Corliss in 1971. All these forecasts turned out to be wrong by
several orders of magnitude. Smil also cited another failed forecast about the United States
(US) fast breeder reactor technique.

Yet another example is the quantitative forecasts of the global primary energy consumption
by year 2000 made by participants in the International Energy Workshop in 1983. Most of
them turned out wrong by as much as 30-60%. Among the few ‘lucky’ ones that came close,
none them were correct on the makeup of the figures predicted.

In one of the most impressive illustration (fig 3.18), he demonstrated the futility of predicting
future oil prices in the world market because the fluctuations is so irregular.

Amory Lovins’s 1976 prediction that ‘soft’ energy techniques will provide one-third of US
primary energy by year 2000 did not fair better either. It turned out to be just about 3%.

He also condemned forecasting based on computer modelling saying that the modeller “think
they can do better by making their creations progressively more complex, by including more
drivers and more feedbacks. They do not seem to realise that a greater complexity that is
required to make such interactive models more realistic also necessitates the introduction of
more estimates (which can soon turn into pure guesses) and often also of longer chains of
concatenated assumptions, and these necessities defeat the very quest for greater realism”.(pp
172). I share his point of view.

How do we plan ahead then? Smil answers by proposing “normative scenarios” which means
“outlining what should happen rather than what is likely to happen”. This involves
“exploratory modelling” to assess the implications of various hypotheses. Normative
scenarios must be flexible and include “no regret” scenarios inorder to avoid the impacts of
“unexpected happenings” such as economic depression and recession(US credit crunch),
September 11th terrorist attack, etc. I agree that this is more realistic way of looking ahead.

Is the decline of global crude oil production imminent? Smil asks in addressing the future of
fossil fuels in chapter 4. This is a very important and increasingly urgent question because the
future of our “high-energy” modern society largely depends on the answer. In probably the
most interesting chapter, he reviews the arguments of the two dominant prevailing
worldviews on the future exhaustion of fossil fuels: the optimistic and pessimistic views.

The optimists (mostly economists), who are “fervent believers” in the market and technical
fixes, told us to stop been concerned about “global physical exhaustion” of fossil fuels
arguing that it is the future price rather than availability that will determine their future use.
As the cost of exploration and extraction becomes unacceptable in terms of high prices and
environmental impacts, fossil fuels will give way to “acceptable substitutes”. “The real
challenge”, as far as they are concerned, “is to avoid the situation where the extraction of the
remaining resource would be so expensive that it would disrupt economies and social
structures at a time when no acceptable substitutes would be ready in the market”.(pp 186)

The pessimists (mostly “cautious geologists” and “environmental catastrophists”) are worried
“imminent end of the oil era”. They worry about the economic, social and environmental
consequences that would result after the global peaking and subsequent decline of global oil
production sometime around the first decade of the 21st century.
The optimists point to the increasing reserve to production ratio (R/P ratio) to justify their
argument but the pessimists counter this by pointing out that 90% of present oil reserves have
already been discovered since the latter half of the 19 th century, which “means that both the
recent revisions of some national oil reserve totals or claims of new spectacular discoveries
are at best exaggerated, at worst outright fraudulent”.(pp 190)

Smil weighs the merits and demerits of these arguments and a moderate position. The future
of fossil fuels, he said, will be determined by prices, environmental considerations, recent and
future technical innovations in exploration and extraction, and energy efficiency. He believes
that though “oil’s contribution to total hydrocarbon supply will be declining”, oil will still
play a substantial role throughout the 21 st century. On the imminent global peaking, he says
the timing of peak is dependent on supply as well as demand, and “changes in demand result
from a complex interplay of energy substitutions, technical advances, government policies
and environmental considerations”.

He believes that natural gas will play a major part in the future as a ‘clean’ fuel mainly in the
generation of electricity. What about coal? He believes that coal’s future use will be depended
on the state of its two major remaining markets: electricity generation and iron and steel
production. Its continual use in the industries will depend on the prices of substitutes such as
natural gas and its “environmental acceptability” and not on availability.

In chapter 5, Smil begins by telling us that “There is at least one obvious certainty when
examining the global energy supply on a civilizational timescale: our predominantly
fossil-fueled society is bound to be a relatively ephemeral affair”. This is a sobering
statement. So, the logical question becomes: What comes after fossil fuels? Or How do we
replace fossil fuels?

How can we sustain our high level of development (affluent countries) and be able to extend
the benefits of higher energy use to those in the low-income countries who critically need it
for development? Smil envisages a gradual transition to non-fossil energies, especially
renewables. He went on to describe a host of renewable options which include wind, solar,
flowing water, tidal waves and biomass: the available technologies, benefits, costs and
limitations. The main disadvantage of renewables is their low power densities when compared
with fossil fuels, thus requiring large area of land for locating their infrastructure. Other
significant disadvantages are their unpredictability (solar and wind power) and location
inflexibility. Land requirements for wind and solar power generation may conflict with
food production especially in small countries. The infrastructural restructuring of the whole
energy network so that PV solar energy can handle the energy requirement of megacities will
be too much to contemplate. Besides, without the availability of reliable energy storage
systems, most of the energy generated by solar or wind will be wasted.

Tidal waves are unreliable since they are periodic and only available in few locations around
the world. Geothermal flow is predictable but also restricted to few locations.

Hydroelectricity, by far the most reliable renewable energy resource, is currently supplying
about 20% of the world’s electricity. Mass displacements of poor people from their homes
and livelihoods usually without adequate compensation have turned public opinion against
construction of large dams. At least 40 million people has been displaced during the 20 th
century mostly in China and India. Recent studies revealing that GHG like carbon dioxide and
methane are emitted from reservoirs did not help matters.
Smil analyses the future prospect of hydrogen replacing gasoline. He identified two obstacles:
high capacity storage vessel needed by a hydrogen-fueled car and safety issues since
hydrogen has a wider range of flammability than gasoline.

On the future of nuclear power which currently supplies 16% of world’s electricity, Smil is
not optimistic. I share his pessimism. The EU, one of the major generators of nuclear power,
have passed legislations committing members to deadlines on “abandonment of all nuclear
generation”. Sweden, one of the pioneers of nuclear generation, is committed to phasing out
all their nuclear plants by 2010.

Nuclear power is fraught with serious problems: risk of accidents, weapons’ proliferation,
disposal of radioactive waste and uncertainty in construction costs and performance. Smil
thinks that “we should not discard the nuclear option” citing Beek (1999) who concluded that
“ the future of nuclear industry is more in hands of research than in receiving orders for more
plants”. But the public perception of nuclear power, despite the looming fossil-fueled global
warming disaster, will make it more difficult for governments or investors to ‘pump’ funds
into nuclear research. I think more research should be done especially in the area of safety. I
do not subscribe to the abandonment of nuclear power because I see it as the quickest way of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions, at least in the short term while building up our renewable
base.