Singapore Peak Oil

Excerpts from a speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the World Cities Summit, 24 June 2008:

The first element of sustainable living is to conserve resources. It is especially important to conserve energy, in the form of electricity and fuel. This is both to minimise wastage, and also because usually energy derives from fossil fuel, and saving energy also reduces carbon emissions.

The idea is there, but it does not convey the urgency and gravity of the sustainability problems that we are facing due to resource depletion. It would have been better, albeit tactless and undiplomatic, to have said bluntly: "The first element of sustainable living is to understand that any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably will collapse. (Tainter's Axiom)"

To have the greatest effect, energy efficiency should be factored into the way the whole city is designed, including its urban layout, buildings, transport system and industrial facilities...Such cities can still improve their energy efficiency, for example by encouraging use of public transport instead of cars, and not over-cooling or over-heating buildings. But substantial improvements will take time.

Energy efficiency is, of course, desirable. What the Singapore government often overlooks is total consumption. There are, after all, finite amounts of fossil fuels and no measure of efficiency is going to stop us from exhausting what's left in the ground if the total quantity of energy we extract increases every year. Instead of focusing purely on per capita consumption, it's more important and logical to be mindful of total energy consumption.

Look at the charts below and compare how even though we have improved our energy efficiency, total electricity consumption has risen relentlessly.

Sources: EMA, Singstat and E2Singapore

One more thing about efficiency that we need to be mindful of - Jevon's Paradox

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource tends to increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates. --- WIKI

Ideally energy should be priced not just at today’s market levels, but also taking into account the likelihood of a future carbon-constrained world, be it due to scarcer supplies of fossil fuels or a post-Kyoto regime to restrain carbon emissions.

"Scarcer supplies of fossil fuels" - Peak oil, Peak Natural Gas.

Another strategy is to shift towards clean and renewable energy, like wind and solar power, with a smaller carbon footprint. These should be part of the solution, but realistically they lack the scale to replace more than a small proportion of fossil fuel use.

Good. He realises that alternative energies are not a direct convenient replacement for oil.

There have been breakthroughs in water technologies, more so than in clean energy. In the last two decades, advances in reverse osmosis and membrane technologies have made desalination, water reuse and other water purification techniques significantly cheaper, and enabled them to be deployed on a large scale. This has transformed the problem from an absolute resource constraint to a question of economics. More water is available, at the right price.

I disagree. The question is not entirely one of money but more importantly energy. Water treatment plants require huge energy inputs to operate. How are we going to produce affordable potable water if the price of energy continues to ascend? How can we maintain or increase our current treated water output levels if there is a shortfall of energy? Like the Minister Mentor, he is holding on to a fundamental error held by mainstream economists by believing that money will solve our resource problems:

Error: Economic activity as a function of infinite "money creation", rather than a function of finite "energy stocks" and finite "energy flows". In fact, the economy is 100% dependent on available energy -- it always has been, and it always will be. LINK

The full text of the PM's speech can be found here.

Mr Mah Bow Tan, Singapore's Minister for National Development, in today's Straits Times:

More than 700 policymakers, governors, urban planners and environmentalists from various countries are gathering at the Suntec Convention Centre, where the concept of 'sustainable development' will be in the limelight.

It is 'one of those terms that people use without knowing the meaning', noted Mr Mah, who defined it as such: 'It's how do we continue to grow in a way that doesn't adversely affect our living environment.'

With all due respect, I have to ask him, "Minister, do you know that the phrase 'sustainable development' is an oxymoron?" It is oxymoronic because the arithmetic of steady growth becomes exponentially large over a period of time, and due to physical constraints development or growth has to stop somewhere when the limits are reached. See video.

While Singapore has done 'fairly well over the last 40, 50 years', it faces new challenges in terms of resource constraints - energy, water, and land - as it tries to maintain growth, said Mr Mah.

To grow, he added: 'I submit that we need to continue to attract talent.

'More talent, more people means more strain on resources. More strain on resources means growth may be at the expense of the environment. So how do we reconcile that? It can be a vicious circle or we make it into a virtuous circle.'

I'm glad Mr Mah sees the toll a higher population exacts on the environment, but strangely he does not see the obvious solution. How do we reconcile that? He asks. Well, the simple answer is we can't. We can't reconcile environmental protection with ever-increasing human numbers and consumption. Logic dictates that conclusion as we live in a finite world with finite resources. The only (unpopular and politically incorrect) solution is to replace the doctrine of population and economic growth with a Steady State Economy.

How in the world does Mr Mah intend to make "more people" a "virtuous circle"? It's impossible. Is the minister familiar with Garrett Hardin's Three Laws of Human Ecology? I don't think so, and even if he is, he is not taking them seriously.

First Law of Human Ecology: "We can never do merely one thing." This is a profound and eloquent observation of the interconnectedness of nature.

Second Law of Human Ecology: "There's no away to throw to." This is a compact statement of one of the major problems of the effluent society.

Third Law of Human Ecology: The impact (I) of any group or nation on the environment is represented qualitatively by the relation

I = P A T

where P is the size of the population,A is the per capita affluence, measured by per capita rate of consumption, and T is a measure of the damage done by the technologies that are used in supplying the consumption. Hardin attributes this law to Ehrlich and Holdren (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971).

http://dieoff.org/page39.htm

Said Mr Mah: 'Now we've got to look at energy. How do we save energy? How do we make better use of energy? How can we, can we recycle energy?'

Does the minister even understand what he himself is saying? You can't "recycle" energy because the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that. Energy once used is transformed from a state of low entropy to high entropy. Entropy measures the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work. When you burn gasoline, chemical energy is transformed into heat energy to power the car. How do you "recycle" the dispersed heat that has been used to do work? Is it possible to assemble the used energy for "recycling"? The answer is you can't. The entropy law dictates that this transformation process is one-way only and is therefore irreversible.

One cannot help but despair of the future when the minister who is responsible for a sustainable living environment makes such ludicrous statements.

---

The Straits Times, June 23, 2008

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_250709.html

Next target: Cut energy use

Minister Mah suggests reduction of 20%-30%; people will need to rethink how they use electricity By Li Xueying

SINGAPORE has to work harder at cutting down energy usage - perhaps by 20 per cent to 30 per cent, as countries around the world increasingly emphasise sustainable development.

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who said this, noted that Singapore has scored relatively well on the water and land usage fronts.

'But I think (on) energy, we've not done enough. I think we need to do more,' he said in an interview with The Straits Times.

There would have to be a multifaceted approach taken, he noted.

On the Government's part, it can examine policies such as using new materials to construct HDB blocks, examining new ways of designing and maintaining lifts which currently 'use up a lot of energy', and installing energy-saving lights in public carparks.

Singaporeans, as consumers, also have to play their part in understanding the amount of energy that their various appliances use up, and going for energy-saving versions, he added.

'So I think we need to go into the details of each and every one of these items, and see how we can cut down energy usage 20 per cent, 30 per cent,' said Mr Mah.

His remarks come as the inaugural three-day World Cities Summit - co-organised by his ministry - kicks off today.

More than 700 policymakers, governors, urban planners and environmentalists from various countries are gathering at the Suntec Convention Centre, where the concept of 'sustainable development' will be in the limelight.

It is 'one of those terms that people use without knowing the meaning', noted Mr Mah, who defined it as such: 'It's how do we continue to grow in a way that doesn't adversely affect our living environment.'

Certainly, there are challenges as Singapore seeks to cut down on its energy usage, he conceded.

'Upfront costs may be a bit higher, but we have to (do it), if it makes practical sense. And (whether) the payback period is two, three, five, seven years, whatever, if this makes sense, then we have to do it,' he said.

'How many taxes, how many incentives are there, what are the things we need? I think these are things that we need to sit down and discuss.'

These are details that an inter-ministerial committee - co-chaired by Mr Mah and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim - is thrashing out.

It will be rolling out a 10-year roadmap next year on how Singapore can adopt green solutions in transport, housing and industry.

While Singapore has done 'fairly well over the last 40, 50 years', it faces new challenges in terms of resource constraints - energy, water, and land - as it tries to maintain growth, said Mr Mah.

To grow, he added: 'I submit that we need to continue to attract talent.

'More talent, more people means more strain on resources. More strain on resources means growth may be at the expense of the environment. So how do we reconcile that? It can be a vicious circle or we make it into a virtuous circle.'

This comes in tandem with record energy prices.

In an assessment of Singapore's efforts to date, the minister said: '(With respect to) water we have done very well: How do we save water? How do we make sure that water is reused and recycled?

'On land, I think we've been very conscious about how we make use of land: Better utilisation of land; we've already done intensification, higher plot ratios and so on.'

So what is lacking are efforts on the energy front.

Said Mr Mah: 'Now we've got to look at energy. How do we save energy? How do we make better use of energy? How can we, can we recycle energy?'

xueying@sph.com.sg

Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has a published a report (dated Nov 2007) on Singapore's energy policies. You can download it here: Energy For Growth - National Energy Policy Report

There are many things to commend about the report. It touched on the need to improve energy efficiency, reduce CO2 emissions, diversify energy sources, promote public transport and to control air pollution.

But to be blunt, it's better titled Energy For Unsustainable Growth because even though they keep repeating the word "sustainable", their policies really are UN-sustainable as they seem to have a total disregard for the axioms of sustainability outlined by Bartlett and others. Throughout the report, the impression given is that economic growth is always good, essential and limitless. Overpopulation was not touched on.

The core objective of our energy policy must thus be to secure Energy for Growth. (p.22)

If overgrowth in consumption and population are the root causes of our environmental concerns, then why do our policymakers continue to establish growth as the "core objective of our energy policy? Is more growth the answer to our problems? Does it make any sense at all? If smoking is causing you to have poor health, then the natural and logical thing to do is to stop smoking. If overgrowth is the problem, then non-growth or anti-growth is the solution.

Here's an analogy: Eating when one is hungry is satisfying and nourishing. Following our policymakers' logic, if eating is good for you then overeating must be better!

What does "grow" mean? What do you mean when you tell someone to "grow up"? Most people would agree that to grow means to expand; to increase; to gain. But an overlooked definition of "grow" which is more applicable to our economies and population is "to reach maturity".

Let's look at some other definitions of "grow":

American Heritage Dictionary: "to develop and reach maturity"

Merriam-Webster: "to spring up and develop to maturity"

Etymonline: Grown-up (adj.) "mature" is from 1633; the noun meaning "adult person" is from 1813

A child who grows up and reaches physical maturity is said to have "grown-up". If he grows any more, either taller or sideways, then it's a possible sign of ill-health. A "grown-up" continues to grow by developing knowledgeably and spiritually, not physically. Even if he or she develops physically with regard to muscle building, it should be obvious that even then there are limits as we cannot expect a bodybuilder to attain the strength of a gorilla or an elephant. There are, however, no limits to knowledge and creativity.

When our economy has "matured" to a certain stage, or when GDP reaches a certain level, it's time to say enough is enough - the economy cannot grow forever. There must come a point where we have to learn to be satisfied with our material achievements and move on to qualitative or spiritual development for the earth is finite in matter and energy and cannot satisfy all our physical wants. If owning a car makes you happy, will 10 cars take you to heavenly realms?

Now for the most disturbing part of the report:

World proven coal reserves are equivalent to 147 years at 2006 consumption levels, based on the British Petroleum (BP) Statistical Review of World Energy 2007. For oil and gas, proven reserves are estimated to be sufficient for only around 40 and 63 years of 2006 levels of consumption respectively. Nevertheless,oil and gas production is not expected to peak within the next two to three decades. With more exploration and improvements in extraction technologies, substantial new reserves will be added. Since 1980, globally proven oil reserves have expanded by 81 per cent, while proven gas reserves have more than doubled. (p.13)

This is so wrong I am astonished MTI even had this in the report. Compared to climate change, now I know why the Singapore government has paid scant attention to the peak oil problem - because they take BP's Statistical Review as gospel truth.

(Compare the Google search results of "climate change", "global warming" and "peak oil" in the .gov.sg domain. The results are 3000, 1560 and 3 respectively. Climate change and peak oil are related because they result from human dependency on fossil fuels.)

The current CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, disputes the peak oil theory and it was reported that he entered a wager with Kjell Aleklett of ASPO to bet that global crude production in 2018 will be greater than the current daily output of 85.5 million barrels per day. My bet's on Aleklett.

Let's review some points:

• Global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s
• Since the 1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming
• Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production
• Oil production from existing oilfields is declining at a rate between 3 and 5 percent while oil demand has been increasing at about 2% per year
• World oil production growth trends have been flat from 2005 to 2008
• The 81% increase in global oil reserves since 1980 are not "proven" or audited. The large increases in the BP report stems from the fact that BP quoted directly from OPEC members who gave them phony figures. Their REAL oil numbers are a state secret. OPEC members grossly overstated their reserves in the 1980s to increase their production rights.
• Improvements in extraction technology will not add substantial reserves since the cause is geological limits. If it's not there, it's not there. You can't create oil from thin air. The North Sea was developed by private companies using the best technology there is with no restrictions on drilling, yet oil production from those oil fields have been declining since 1999.
• If you factor in dramatic increases in coal usage to make up for oil and gas declines, taking into account also the Hubbert Peak phenomenon and the varying coal qualities and accessibility, Energy Watch Group predicts coal to peak in 15 years.

Sources:
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Middle_Eastern_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5655
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-Coalreport_10_07_2007.pdf

Whoever wrote that part of the report is seriously disconnected from the real world. Note that this report was published in Nov 2007, when peak oil was already making its way into mainstream media. Seriously, who the heck wrote that paragraph?

The Singapore government is clueless as to where we are heading. We are sleepwalking into an energy crisis.