What then will give? Of course a grave economic crisis—war, global depression, economic collapse of one or more major economies—would cut oil demand the hard way. There are two much better alternatives. The first is a redesigned, far more energy-efficient automobile that uses low-carbon-emitting energy carriers such as electricity or hydrogen. Several variants of plug-in-hybrid and all-battery cars have been promised by major auto producers as early as 2010, and several demonstration hydrogen fuel-cell cars are also expected around then. Many oil-using industrial processes as well could be similarly reconfigured to use other energy carriers.
Many unresolved problems of cost, performance and infrastructure face these technologies, of course. Public funding for technological research, development and demonstration, and for supporting infrastructure, should certainly be deployed to ensure a timely changeover to new energy efficient (and low-carbon-dioxide emitting) vehicles. Any electric or hydrogen option will require large-scale deployment of new low-emission electricity generation, such as solar, wind, nuclear, and coal plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
The second alternative, equally important, is a gradual reconfiguration of city life, to reduce our dependence on automobiles and raise our reliance on walking, cycling and public transport. We’ve learned that sprawl is not good for energy dependence, air quality, biodiversity, human health or quality of life, including commuting time. We’ve also learned that despite free-market ideological presumptions, urban sprawl is at least as much a function of zoning and the provision of public infrastructure (for example, roads versus light rail) as it is of individual lifestyle choices.
The current energy crisis will most likely worsen before it gets better. It threatens to create a prolonged period of stagflation, increased oil skirmishes and even oil wars, and further marginalization of the poor, who will find themselves priced out of transport and perhaps even out of food if the U.S. keeps up its dangerous policy of converting corn to ethanol fuel. Yet it could also be the critical spur to action, prompting vital changes in technologies and lifestyles. It’s not too late to take the more productive path, but time is running out.
Note: This article was originally published with the title, "Coping with a Persistent Oil Crisis".
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add Comment"The first is a redesigned, far more energy-efficient automobile that uses low-carbon-emitting energy carriers such as electricity or hydrogen. Several variants of plug-in-hybrid and all-battery cars have been promised by major auto producers as early as 2010, and several demonstration hydrogen fuel-cell cars are also expected around then.", thats the one, and work from home, Bush did put a billion dollars into hydrogen research back in early 2002, he understands that oil is not the future, but oil is here right now, otherwise for sure we will run out of oil if hydrogen is not fully utilized, they want cars in India and China, soon Vietnam, Bush shouldn't be bashed in he did try 1 billion dollars before the crises he recognized the need to switch away from oil.it is just that it is all overshadowed by Iraq, the next president would probably do more be he Democrat or Republican
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI urge Mr. Sachs to review the growth in corn production again. According to the information I have, corn production excluding the corn used for ethanol increased significantly over the last three years. He needs to keep in mind that the corn used to make ethanol is not used up since almost all of the corn used reenters the food chain albeit at a different point. He also needs to acknowledge that it would be better to drill and produce our on oil instead of sending $44 billion to other countries instead of to ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Drilling in protected areas would provide little relief, and at horrendous environmental risks."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we put so much faith in science and technology to eventually provide an alternative to carbon-based fuel, why is there no belief that science and technology can provide redundant safeguards that allow safe, responsible utilization of all our current oil availability. To my knowledge, no one believes that simply drilling for more oil will solve all our problems, but technologies take time to develop and engineer and move into the market place. Why shouldn't we responsibly drill for more oil as part of an over-all, long term shift in energy use?
Thanks for the well thought out article. It's clear to anyone who thinks about it for a moment that offshore drilling or drilling in protected areas are just short term solutions that will do nothing to fix the underlying problem of our dependence on a substance that is slowly killing the planet. What's needed is a complete rethink of the way we live:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theendisalwaysnear.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-car.html
The quality in the articles in this magazine has declined a lot in the last few years. The author has some valid points, but how do the editors allow so many contradictions to go unchallenged?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever Americans do to decrease demand will not matter, the author says, because Chinese strong growth will more than compensate....now how does he forecast Chinese growth to remain strong...if the says they suck up a lot of the oil to sustain that growth and he forecast oil to stay high? One balances the other! Usually is thinking like this that makes the boom and bust cycles: It'll be $10/bbl for ever the oil industry said just 8 years ago when prices collapsed (all it took was 100,000 bbl/day excess supply!), the same way that now everybody says: It'll be over $100/bbl for ever (it already dropped $50 from its peak!). Looks to me like this is a mean reverting commodity price if I've seen one, it gets too expensive, people look for alternatives and conserve more, on the othe hand people produce more (Canada alone has more oil than Saudi Arabia! you just have to mine it instead of drilling) put the two together and prices come down.
Ironic, but high oil prices should be celebrated by all environmentalist as it is probably the most effective way to promote alternative energy!! At lower oil prices, nothing else is competitive.
But again, my point is more the quality of the article, India is growing its car force, that's so bad the author says, while in the same sentence he writes about the nano (failing to make the point that it is much more fuel efficient of course) than the average car in America...maybe Americans will buy it too if it succees? Further reducing demand!
The author makes lots of claims with no data to back it up, how is that allowed in Scientific American? And also just gross misrepresentations, the oil in undrilled areas of the USA would only last whatever months...as if one could produce it all at once! That makes no sense, I can take all of the reserves of Venezuela and say that if Venezuela had to provide all of the oil of the world it would only last a few years, therefore is not worth it drilling there either! Great environmental risk for off shore drilling in the USA he says? what disasters does he base this on? Off shore drilling in TX and LA constantly face hurricanes and the like and have a very good tract record. Fossil fuels might very well be in the final phase, but to bridget the gap, particularly if the author is right regarding a crisis, then we need all energy sources!
Because it's never been about science, it's been about capitalism. Oil is cheap, abundant and economical. In a sane world, we would be working like crazy to find and extract as much as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we don't live in a sane world. We live in a world ruled by nature worship.
Oil is not cheap, it is not abundant, and is not safe, yet we are working like crazy to extract as much as possible. Exxon mobile is the most profitable company in the world, and we live in a world ruled by money. Logically then, we live in a world ruled by oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReducing our dependance on oil is not about the environment (I mean that might be a bonus); but that is not by any means the most important reason. First of all there is a limited supply on this planet that may be exhausted as soon as within the century. So it is only a matter of time before we need an alternative. Second, it is a matter of national security. There is not enough oil offshore or in nature reserves to give us what we need - so we need to hold on to these resources as a last resort. Yes - technology may not find a replacement for every petroleum based product (yes that includes plastic) for quite some time. This is exactly why we need to shift our priorities off of oil as much as we can to prepare. At least if we hold off on drilling what few reserves are left we will still have oil available if it comes down to life and death (which it almost inevitably will).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA solution to the problem outlined in the article is, obviously, to have battery driven cars. The problem is that automobile manufacturers insist on simply putting batteries into full-sized vehicles with the obvious result that the performance sucks. In order for this to work we need radically redesigned vehicles that are much, much lighter: to get some feeling for how much difference this would make, consider the fact that 1/2 horsepower will propel a cyclist (~200lbs of bike +athlete) at 50 km/hr. With a fairing this becomes 80 km/hr.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 92 Geo Metro XFI got 58 mpg Highway and 48 city. It was a small little three cylinder car that cost me $685 TTL. If the technology from 1992 could make a non-hybrid gas engine that efficient, why are our hybrids doing barely better than that (most are worse)? It's all about horse power. We don't need all that horse power in our cars. We just need a vehicle that can move from point A to point B reliably and cost effectively. Who cares if it can go from 0-60 in so many seconds. I'm more concerned with it's ability to go from 60-0. If the car manufacturers could make a car with 60-70 mpg highway that cost less than 10k, we might have something viable that would reduce how much we spend on gas. Before my car died, I only spent an average of $20 to fill up every month. Our Ford Focus gets 24-32 mpg and we now spend $40 every week on gas. If the car manufacturers weren't in bed with the oil companies, I think we might have a chance. The government should continue to increase the minimum mpg for vehicles. I don't think requiring a car to get at least 24 mpg for utility (cars/SUVs), and 32 mpg for everything else is unreasonable. It might just take a bit more pressure. Right now, we are spending all this money on gas simply because we need it in order to get to work and pay the bills. I'm considering moving closer to my work for this very reason (I'll ride a bike to work).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have the technology to accomplish high MPG cars and alternative energy sources. The rising price of oil is a great incentive to put more research into this.
Oil is cheap. Oil is abundant, and we are not working like crazy to extract all there is, or we would open up ANWR, the ACS, the entire Gulf, lift the moratorium on oil shale, etc. And oil is safe. There have been no mass deaths caused by oil, even when the kuwait oil fields were set on fire. There is no trace of biological damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant, and compared to water vapor, which is hundreds of times more abundant in the atmosphere, is a trivial greenhouse gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, energy policy in this country is driven by nature worship, not science.
But, if you radically re-design the car to be super light and efficient, then you'll get even better performance out of a gasoline engine. Here's all you need to know:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLi-ion battery: 600 joules per gram
Gasoline: 47,000 joules per gram
You want an alternative to oil? Find a way to make gasoline in a sustainable fashion.
I think the point is that, for the many reasons others have pointed out, we want to stop using fossil fuels, and battery powered electric cars are a step in that direction, which can become a giant leap if all our energy is renewable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US motorists burn away more than 16% of the worldwide demand of 85 million barrels per day (somehow this figure of 85 mbd was reduced to 82 mbd in the 4th paragraph, I am puzzled). Does this not continue to threaten and worsen the energy crisis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is well researched and analyzed. With the increase in global population and more and more people moving up the social mobility ladder, greater amount of energy would be required. The world simply does not have the abundance of energy (renewable or non-renewable) at the moment to cope with this relentless upgrade of standard of living within a relatively short time.
One immediate way to alleviate the nasty situation would be for the owners of 650 million (10% of the number of global 6.5 billion people) road vehicles to cut down the usage worldwide. Get a smaller car and use the public transport more often. Avoid driving when the destination is within walking distance.
To help the poor to live a better life, the rich should sacrifice a bit by curbing their unnecessary extravagance. (Tan Boon Tee)
Its very expensive to have this energy sources,coz even philippines has a very high oil price. so as a concern citizen, mayb its nice to have natural energy sources like ,dams, wind mills and etc. that's very practical,isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain Scientific Americian again displayed there anti Bush bias along with yet another dig at the United States (but then when your the biggest dog on the block you will take the most shots). Noted that there are several good points in this article and several good points in the comments to date. We (and by that I mean the world) need to get off of our dependence upon fossil fuels. For the US in particular it is a matter of national security. What I am not seeing is what India and China are suppose to do. Apparently the US alone is responsible for all the problems thus must shoulder the burden alone while the rest of the world continues to do what they are doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Sachs does not address how oil producers' decisions are affected by economics. The fact that Crude production in the Persian Gulf has been "flat since the 1970's" does not necessarily mean that production will stay flat or roll off. Producers have made, and will continue to make, their investment and production decisions to maximize their own benefits. I would like to see an analysis that includes this strategic behavior of producers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE MOST OBVIOUS SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS IS TO USE LIQUID NATURAL GAS. SOME COULD COME FROM DRILLING BUT MUCH COULD BE HAD BY DERIVING IT FROM HUMAN AND ANIMAL FECES. THINK OF IT. THE CONCENTRATION OF HUMANS (IN THE U.S. 90%) IN THE CITIES MEANS THAT PRESENT SEWAGE SYSTEMS CAN BE UTILIZED. ROUGHLY FOUR POUNDS IS NEEDED TO MAKE A GALLON. EACH PERSON PRODUCES OVER HALF A POUND PER DAY. THAT MEANS 30,000,000 GALLONS PER DAY, NOT INCLUDING STEERS, CHICKENS AND HOGS WHICH WOULD LIKELY TRIPLE THE AMOUNT. ITS EASY TO PRODUCE, IS FAR CHEAPER, HAS HIGHER CALORIFIC VALUE, IS CLEAN BURNING AND RENEWABLE. AND MOST OF IT IS CONCENTRATED WHERE DEMAND IS GREATEST. AND CONVERTING AUTOMOBILES TO USE LNG COSTS RELATIVELY LITTLE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne immediate answer to the gas shortage is to use Liquid Natural Gas. Some can come from drilling but much can be obtained by using human and animal feces. With 90% of the population of the U.S. living in cities it is a relatively easy process to collect the waste material. It takes about four pounds to make a gallon which means 30,000,000 gallons a day. Add to this the waste of steers, chickens and hogs and the total probably triples. As a fuel LNG is clean burning, less expensive, has higher calorific value, and is constantly renewable. It is concentrated where population is greatest saving transportation costs. It is an obvious resource for those countries like China and India with huge populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA small selection of important points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Battery cars: TeslaMotors has a 225 mph / 240 mpg equivalent / 240 mi range sportscar (The Roadster) out now, and will have a sedan (Model S) with similar mileage and range out by 2010. And batteries, with nanowire tech etc., are on track for a 5-10X capacity jump.
2) Oil (onshore); the Bakken field (north lower 48 + Saskatchewan) is now estimated by the Geological Survey to have 500 bn bbl recoverable. Some firms are now using new horizontal shale-cracking tech to extract lighter, sweeter crude than Saudi's at $16/bbl. That's enough for 70 yrs of current US consumption, all sources.
3) The most economical and versatile of the Dense Plasma Focus fusion models, "Focus Fusion", is being developed by Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, with about an 8-10 timeline. If progress continues at present rates, the result will be a home-garage sized generating station for $250,000, putting out 5MW at $0.0025 (¼ ¢/ kwh), with zero material and minimal heat waste or radiation. Virtually all other generating technologies would be immediately rendered economically non-viable and irrelevant. Here's hoping!
While science and politics are almost always intertwined and are used to fight or justify each others positions, it is disappointing to see an article with only scientific generalizations posted on a Science website. Most people agree we need to look for better alternatives to oil. Most people agree CO2 is bad. Most people agree with most points in this article. The problem is there is little more than generalization used to back up the points. The problem is not what is said, but how poorly it was supported. As soon as generalizations and public opinion can be admitted as scientific evidence in this or other scientific forums, all bets are off when it comes to informing the public with truly accurate information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm, you got lucky that this article is mostly accurate, but please you can do better than this.
There is solution based on Gravity Powered transport! Visit http://gravitypoweredtransport.blogspot.com please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrajarambojji
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no gravity powered means of transportation, and will not be any until we can define gravity waves (like electromagnetic waves). Why do you persist in trying to delude people?
Nice column. But when it comes to coal and nuclear let's remember how little time (10 years?) we have to achieve the CO2 reductions necessary to avert even more catastrophic impacts of climate change. Both carbon storage (CCS) and a new generation of nuclear plants are far from commercially viable any time soon not to mention their expense and significant safety risks. In addition, both will rob scarce federal dollars and irreplaceable time from investments in proven clean energy sources such as wind, solar and energy conservation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a practical road map on how to achieve needed CO2 reductions by 2050 without relying on additional coal and nuclear plants see: www.energyblueprint.info/
The author has a pronounced, but unrecognized, urban bias, but that is understandable from a faculty member at Columbia. I agree that many unsupported statements and assumptions are made in the article (ref previous comments).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA one size fits all solution to our energy problems is unlikely to be found. What works in NYC will not be appropriate in Cheyenne or Abilene. Our national addiction to oil is primarily driven by our choices of transportation and transportation infrastructure. This nation moves on rubber tires on concrete and asphalt roads. Certainly increased emphasis on high speed electric rail would be of benefit particularly if powered by the only mid-term viable alternative to fossil power that we have -- nuclear. Nothing will move forward until we get over the NIMBY mindset that stymies every reasonable alternative to fossil fuels. The power for electric or hybrid vehicles will have to come from somewhere and the wind doesn't blow all the time and solar is effective less than half of every day. It will even take substantial additional electric power to produce the hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles.
The Interstate highway system was conceived and implemented in the early 50's by the Eisenhower administration and was largely completed in 15 years. A shift away from rubber tires on highways will take an effort of similar magnitude. We need to stop quibbling and get started.
10/4/2008 Dr. M. Sage
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the articles miss the point. There are too many people on the planet, which can only sustain 4-5 billion people depending on technology. When are we going to start researching the solution to the challenge that our children will be facing not too far into the future.
10/4/2008 Dr. M. Sage
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the articles miss the point. There are too many people on the planet, which can only sustain 4-5 billion people or more depending on technology. When are we going to start using all the research that is complete, which can assist in remedy this challenge and begin to implement the solutions before our children will have to face all these problems not too far into the future, if there is a future.
Regardless of the arguments for and against climate change legislation, it remains that drilling for oil and gas is safe for the environment. There is no "environmental" argument against drilling anywhere. There is only a matter of whether one wants to look at a platform from their beach house or at a pump jack from their ski condo. Lower 48 access to drilling (onshore and offshore) is a classic NIMBY issue, not environmental. ANWR drilling would be sited on a few acres of the expansive coastal plain, which is frozen and treeless. It would be highly economic due to the now empty alaskan pipeline providing cheap transport for oil found. Environmental objections to ANWR are not logical and therefore must be about other political objectives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this