Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Lots of information about supply, demand, types of energy sources,
vehicular consumption & pollution, including charts and graphs. HTML
and .PDF formats available:

www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_en ergy_outlook.asp

The company basically says that conventional sources will still
dominate in 2030.

Another prediction made is that hydrogen-fueled cars won't be better
than hybrids, whether in energy consumption or CO2 emissions.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> Lots of information about supply, demand, types of energy sources,
> vehicular consumption & pollution, including charts and graphs. HTML
> and .PDF formats available:
>
> www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_en ergy_outlook.asp
>
> The company basically says that conventional sources will still
> dominate in 2030.
>
> Another prediction made is that hydrogen-fueled cars won't be better
> than hybrids, whether in energy consumption or CO2 emissions.
>
It's a popular myth that hydrogen cars will be totally pollution-free
and therefore better than anything else. Pollution from the car will
indeed be low because burning hydrogen produces water but the problem
comes in getting hold of the hydrogen in the first place. It does not
exist free in nature but combined with other chemicals as water and
hydrocarbons mainly.

The main way of producing it is by electrolysis of water, which requires
electricity. And where does the electricity come from? From power
stations, most of which burn oil. So oil is the primary fuel and
hydrogen just an intermediate fuel. The pollution and carbon dioxide
from burning the oil is at the power stations instead of at the car.
This will help to give cleaner city air but it won't help the planet
unless the whole process is more efficient.

The hydrogen cycle involves the steps a) burning oil at the power
stations to heat water and produce steam b) generating electricity using
a steam turbine and alternator c) Transmit the electricity via
transformers and cables d) Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and
oxygen e) Storage as produced, transport and storage of the hydrogen at
the garages f) burning hydrogen in the car engine.

The usual petrol cycle involves a) Refining the crude oil to produce
petrol and other products b) Transport and storage of the petrol c)
Burning the petrol in the car.

All of these processes have efficiencies less than 100% and therefore
attendant costs. It is not obvious that either the overall costs or
pollution levels from the hydrogen system will be any less than from
petrol cars. Hybrid petrol/electric systems like the Toyota Prius may
well come out best. Hybrid Diesel systems may be better still.

A Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7l V8 does about 18 miles/ UK Gal. It is easy to
double this. A Volvo 2.4l Diesel Estate, a large car by UK standards,
does about 43 mpg. A Prius does about 66 mpg, so a factor of 3.6
improvement is already available and in production compared to a typical
US SUV.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

David interesting post as ever.

One small correction:

- very little of modern electricity production is by oil. The leading
fuels are coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro electric

In the UK oil fired electricity production would be well less than 5%
of all electricity capacity. In North America or Japan practically
zero. From memory the UK electricity generating capacity is about 20%
nuclear, 10% hydro, 30% coal, 40% gas (depends on time of day and also
season: in the middle of the night nuclear would be more like 50%
whereas at 6pm (peak demand) in winter it would be more like 40% coal).

The only places oil is used to generate electricity (much) are either
isolated communities or oil producing countries.

About 60% of US oil demand is for transport fuels.

I agree unless you postulate very cheap electricity (solar or nuclear)
that a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

darkness39 wrote:
> David interesting post as ever.
>
> One small correction:
>
> - very little of modern electricity production is by oil. The leading
> fuels are coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro electric
>
> In the UK oil fired electricity production would be well less than 5%
> of all electricity capacity. In North America or Japan practically
> zero. From memory the UK electricity generating capacity is about 20%
> nuclear, 10% hydro, 30% coal, 40% gas (depends on time of day and also
> season: in the middle of the night nuclear would be more like 50%
> whereas at 6pm (peak demand) in winter it would be more like 40% coal).
>
> The only places oil is used to generate electricity (much) are either
> isolated communities or oil producing countries.
>
> About 60% of US oil demand is for transport fuels.
>
> I agree unless you postulate very cheap electricity (solar or nuclear)
> that a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense.
>
OK Darko, you are right! Your memory is better than mine for the UK. I
should have said fossil fuels instead of oil. I found some figures for
2003 and they are very similar to yours: Coal 41%, Gas 31%, Nuclear 26%,
Oil 1%, Renewables 0.5%, Hydro 0.3%. You were a bit over the top with
Hydro (Some Canadian influence? :-))

Since then we have been closing old Magnox stations and building a few
wind turbines. Actually I was aiming at the USA, where I may have been
as far adrift in detail but correct in mainly fossil-fuel generation.

However, the main gist of my argument is still the same, that the
primary energy source is mainly fossil and hydrogen is just an
intermediate energy transporter so that its low pollution properties are
not very relevant and the extra complication from using it may well put
up costs and not reduce pollution overall.

Of course if the US could go over primarily to solar and wind power
generation hydrogen might begin to make sense. All that wasted sunshine
in the deserts there!

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote?

I'll try to be clearer.

If electricity is (very) cheap and produced by non fossil fuel methods,
then hydrogen makes sense as a transport fuel (albeit with a few
hundreds of billions spent on storage and distribution infrastructure).

If electricity is not cheap and produced by fossil fuels, then given
the laws of thermodynamics you are losing a lot of energy in the making
of hydrogen and its distribution and so it won't make sense as a
transport fuel.

Re: Energy forecast from ExxonMobil, 2003-2030

You are right I was way over on UK hydro (that visit to Kielder dam
must have distorted my memory ;-). Surprised at how big the hydro
component in Europe is generally.