http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf
"Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to
$26.3 trillion to 2030. Unit capital costs, especially in the
upstream oil and gas industry, have continued to surge in the last
year, more than offsetting the slower projected rate of growth in
supply. While the credit squeeze is not expected to affect long-term
investment, it could delay spending in the medium-term, especially in
the power sector, which accounts for $13.6 trillion, or 52% of the
total. Most of the rest goes to oil and gas, mainly for exploration
and development and mostly in non-OECD regions."
This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to
convert the world to renewable energy. See figures I produced in 2005:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf
The "Solar Tower" numbers I used are already reduced by a factor of
1/2.50 for plain solar panels ($1/W vs $2.50), enough to possibly
build a storage and transport structure for world solar energy
production to meet all energy needs for the world for $30T.
The fact sheet says:"Around three-quarters of the projected increase
in oil demand worldwide comes from the transport sector – the sector
least responsive, in the short term, to price changes. Despite
continuing improvements in average vehicle fuel efficiency, the sheer
growth of the car fleet – from an estimated 650 million in 2005 to
about 1.4 billion by 2030 – is expected to continue to push up total
oil use for transport purposes. There is not expected to be any major
shift away from conventionally-fuelled vehicles before 2030, though
the penetration of hybrid-electric cars is projected to rise,
reducing oil demand growth."
The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the
US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1)
reducing speed limits, (2) reducing safety standards for EVs,
allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented
by motor cycles, (3) adapting road standards to enhance safety and
feasibility of use of limited top speed (say 35 mph) vehicles on
local highways, providing new low speed route interconnections where
necessary and economically viable, and quickly establishing licensing
standards for low top speed vehicles, (4) reducing safety standards
for low top speed home built EVs, possibly producing special safety
standards and fully funding licensing inspections, (5) establishing a
gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel,
say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize
renewable energy and conservation, (6) eliminating fossil fuel
subsidies, (7) subsidizing the conversion of vehicles, especially
commercial fleets, to natural gas (see pickensplan.com) and
construction of natural gas filling stations, (8) subsidizing energy
efficient door-to-door taxi/limo/bus services, (9) increasing
subsidies for and construction of electric powered mass transit
systems, (10) increasing bicycle pathways, (11) subsidizing and
cutting the red tape required to build a nationwide underground HVDC
backbone power distribution system, a project similar in national
defense significance to the construction of super highways in the
1950s, and one that might best be accomplished by the government
directly using bid contracts. Ultimately, fleet truck and airline
fuel requirements can be met by biofuel, especially with oil from algae.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
