The end of oil is not in sight

Environmentalists dreaming of a post-pandemic future free of fossil fuels need to wake up.

James Woudhuysen

For once, the cliché ‘unprecedented’ really did apply. In April, the price of an American barrel of oil, delivered in May, briefly dropped from a low $20 to minus $40. Storage capacity for oil became so tight, producers paid people to take it off their hands, for fear that supply chains would clog up irreparably.

That has never happened in 150 years of processing oil.

Some believe that the world’s daily average supply of oil – about 100million barrels a day (mmb/d) – could drop by 20 per cent. After all, America’s lockdown has already made demand for oil there fall from 20 to 14 mmb/d. But it is the collapse of demand for it in transport that has attracted most attention. Indeed, in the OECD area (which includes Europe, the US and Central America), transport accounts for more than 60 per cent of overall demand for oil.

The green establishment, now complete with woke banks and investors, sees in ghost roads and empty skies the beginning of the end of oil. These are the ‘sunset years of the fossil-fuel era’, contends Sky News’ economics editor. The former head of BP, Lord Browne, now says ‘people who have spent months worrying about their lungs are more likely to want clean air’ than continued use of oil. The International Energy Agency’s chief energy modeller has proclaimed that renewables beat fossil fuels because they’re like children – immune from the effects of the virus. Overall, we’re told, the world faces peak demand for oil in just a decade or two.

These people need a reality check. They are convinced electric vehicles will supplant petrol and diesel ones, and that renewables will replace fossil fuels. But they’re fooling themselves.

Take electric transport, for example. It would take 14 years just to restock the entire fleet of cars on UK roads. And, even then, that would depend on: all new cars made being electric by law; the sales of these new cars remaining steady, at 2.3million per year, despite the coming depression; the eight million used, internal-combustion-engine cars sold every year being declared illegal; and the sunk costs of petrol stations and tankers being ignored in favour of new charging points everywhere. And that’s four very big ifs. In other words, it could take much, much longer than 14 years to replace the UK’s existing fleet of cars.

For decades, too, acquiring and transporting the materials for electric cars – as, indeed, for wind turbines and solar panels – will depend on oil much more than electricity. Remember, for example, that the cobalt in batteries isn’t mined in by far the world’s largest producer, the Democratic Republic of Congo, by electric robots and distributed by electric trucks. No, it’s mined using children and diesel.

Greens also expect far too much of China. I’m a big fan of China’s electric cars, but Asia’s rebound from Covid-19 will see demand there surge for cheap-to-buy-and-run conventional cars. Renault, for example, envisages electric vehicles taking just a quarter of the Chinese market by 2030. And it will not just be the Chinese in Asia who, with higher incomes, will want the freedoms provided by the conventional car.

Beyond oil and transport, what about heat and gas? In energy, the price of gas tends to follow trends in the price of oil; so right now, gas, like oil, is really cheap. Yet, obsessed with global ‘heating’, our electric fetishists nevertheless forget the role of heat in industrial processes – the production of steel, chemicals, fertiliser, food, drink, cement, pulp, paper, and plastics – and the centrality of gas within those processes. Even in advanced, electric-arc furnaces, for instance, only half the energy used to make steel comes from amps and volts. Similarly, it is just possible that, by 2050, all plastics production in the EU will be electricity-based, including that of PPE. But environmentalists themselves concede that, in such a case, costs would be two to three times higher than today. And the claims that we can replace ‘nearly all’ UK household gas boilers with electric heat pumps or other alternatives to gas by 2050 remain fanciful at best.

And what of power supply? Environmentalists again deceive themselves when they take the irresistible rise of ‘green electricity’ for granted.

The government’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics states that, in 2018, wind and solar provided just 63.5 per cent of the record 33 per cent of UK electricity produced by renewables. The rest was produced by biofuels, the use of which many greens criticise on the grounds that they emit CO2 and require excessive amounts of land to be grown.

In other words, what are generally understood to be ‘renewables’ amount to just 21 per cent of the UK’s annual electricity supply. Yes, breezy and sunny summers can famously generate higher quantities of UK renewable electricity. But wind and solar won’t dominate year-round UK power supply for ages.

Greens contend that renewables use will increase because wind and solar are always getting cheaper. Yet while wind and solar, like electric vehicles, will indeed benefit from improvements in production technology, so will oil and gas. Our electric fetishists ignore, for instance, how IT has raised the productivity of US shale oil and gas production.

Selective in their appreciation of technological advance, electric fetishists are downright dishonest about the work that goes into electric systems. As noted above, child labour, sweat and exploitation account for much of the production of cobalt for batteries. But for electric fetishists, such facts are inconvenient.

As, indeed, is the fact that nobody can really forecast oil prices. But one kind of forecasting we can do without is the sort that’s wishful, technocratic, and, above all, authoritarian. In the 1980s, the uber-Thatcherite minister Norman Tebbit famously told the unemployed: ‘On your bike!’ Now our wannabe electric rulers tell everyone: on your electric bike – or buy that £40,000 Tesla.

James Woudhuysen is visiting professor of forecasting and innovation at London South Bank University. He is also editor of Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation. Read his blog here.

What we could do with your £5 per month

For less than the cost of two copies of the Guardian, you can help spiked become bigger and better and bolshier than ever. All of our articles and podcasts and essays are free, and we want to keep it that way. But to do so we ask our wonderful readers, if they can afford it, to chip in – ideally with a monthly donation. It might not sound like much, but donating as little as £5 per month has a transformative impact on our work. Knowing that we have your regular support means we can keep going and growing. So if you like our work and want to support us, please do consider signing up.

Thank you!

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Darth Saddius

12th May 2020 at 12:48 pm

The issue of cobalt mining raised by the author (and commentated on by David J below) is a valid concern due to the well documented use of child labour in some supply chains and indeed many other issues surrounding the mining and extraction of this element. It is not just ‘green’ technology that uses cobalt though. A cursory internet search suggests that as a rough rule of thumb about half is used in batteries. The percentage cobalt content of batteries varies with battery type – see for example http://www.investcom.com/industry_overview/cobalt/cobalt_industry_19Jun2018.htm. This source notes that LCO batteries used in portable electronics such as mobiles, lap tops etc contain 60% cobalt. The types of batteries used in energy storage and electric vehicles are quoted as having rather lower contents (up to 20%). I don’t know what the total mass used per battery type per year is.

The other half of cobalt use seems to be for a variety of purposes including alloys used in turbines used for jet engines and er, turbines used in fossil fuel generators.

James Woudhuysen

12th May 2020 at 1:33 pm

Very useful and constructive, Darth; thanks.

Use of child labour is indeed intrinsic for Lithium-Ion batteries for the moment — and cobalt, we can agree, is in more than just wheeled transport.

But as Lyn also says, where — apart from the Michael Moore school of “analysis” — do we hear from Greens about the unnoticed mining conditions behind their narcissistic infatuation with the Toyota Pious?

No doubt sources exist; would be good for us to review them. For example, do they recommend Western or UN intervention in the DRC? Interesting….

Jonnie Henly

12th May 2020 at 6:13 pm

Poor comment from you James, very poorly researched, full of your own prejudice and generally ignorant on the topic at hand.

Please educate yourself before commenting again less you subject us to more of your ramblings.

Darth Saddius

12th May 2020 at 11:30 pm

A quick internet search found a campaign by an organisation caled Green America campaigning against child labour in cocoa production for example, presumably there are others if one carried out a systematic review. And perhaps some organisations campaigning against the exploitation of child labour and for better workers rights also have an interest in environmental protection – the two can go hand in hand.

I think it becomes problematic to lump together everyone who considers themselves ‘green’ or ‘enviromentally aware’ when these terms cover a complex set of views many of which are very different. From my own standpoint I consider environmental protection/conservation to be extremely important for a set of reasons I consider to be entirely rational. This does not mean I wish to sacrifice a goat to the largest oak tree in my local park or make morris dancing compulsory at Beltane. There are complexities at play here – that being said I don’t see a conflict between technological advance and environmental conservation if we all put our thinking caps on.

Lyn Keay

12th May 2020 at 12:02 pm

Replying to David J below.
But, buyers do not enforce non-child mining or even talk about it. There are no movements for child labour free mobile phones, cars etc. There is no fairtrade renewable energy. The misanthropic nature of environmentalism becomes far more obvious when you look at their record.

Jonnie Henly

12th May 2020 at 6:15 pm

Mobile fans have nothing to do with environmentalism or any green agenda.

Perhaps instead of virtue signalling your superiority to envirmnentalists, you could start calling for child free mobile phones and cars?

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.