Environmental Science & TechnologyA new analysis of trends in fuel use projects declining demand for crude oil by 2035 both due to efficiency gains and a shift to other liquid fuels (NGL is natural gas liquids).

Back in 2010, I asked this question: “Which Comes First – Peak Everything or Peak Us?” My focus was whether humans could use the gift of foresight to curb resource appetites in ways that would avoid having the peak imposed on us by shortages or human-induced environmental shifts like climate disruption.

There are growing signs the answer is yes. First came work pointing to “peak travel.” Then I wrote about a study foreseeing “peak farmland” — an end to the need to keep pressing into untrammeled ecosystems to expand agriculture.

Now comes this fascinating paper in Environmental Science & Technology: “Peak Oil Demand: The Role of Fuel Efficiency and Alternative Fuels in a Global Oil Production Decline.” I asked the lead author, Adam R. Brandt of Stanford University, to write an “abstract for the common man” and he kindly complied. Here it is, with a followup question and answer:

Oil depletion studies commonly focus on the supply of conventional petroleum without as much attention to the other side of the equation, which is petroleum demand. In this study, we examine the trends affecting demand for conventional oil in the future to see under what conditions “peak demand” for oil might arise. We find that historical trends in oil use lead to a peak in demand for oil by well before mid-century. If concerted effort is made to shift to oil alternatives and promote efficiency, a demand decline may arise even sooner.

This may seem counter-intuitive, due to seemingly ever-growing demand for oil in Asia and other developing regions. However, a number of trends are underway that will mitigate this demand increase. First, demand for land transport does not grow consistently with wealth. Consumers in developed regions such as the US, Europe and Japan have reached “saturation” for land travel demand, even if we grow wealthier. That is, other factors (time, traffic congestion) limit our demand for land travel, even if we are wealthy enough to travel more. While demand in Asia is currently growing rapidly, that is because they are on the steep part of a “s-shaped” demand growth curve. Current trends should not be extrapolated. At the same time, global fuel economy standards are finally picking up again after some decades of stagnation. Fuel economy regulations across the globe mean that in 10-15 years, the average new consumer vehicle will get milage similar to today’s hybrids. Lastly, alternatives to conventional oil in the transport sector are growing rapidly, including oil sands, biofuels, electric vehicles, and natural gas vehicles. Obviously, not all of these ways to mitigate peak oil have the same climate consequences (more on this below).

Despite this general optimism about shifting away from conventional oil, some sources of demand remain robust. For example, there is no evidence in historical data for saturation of demand for air travel. As people get wealthier, they fly more. No exceptions were found to this trend. Also, oil use in freight and shipping (both domestic and international) does not show saturation effects in our datasets. Thus, these needs grow in importance over time.

We also find that the particular path taken away from conventional oil will strongly affect the climate consequences of our future energy system. A shift to wind and solar powered EVs will obviously have climate benefits. A shift to coal-based synthetic fuels may mitigate the need for conventional oil but will exacerbate climate change. The complex social and ecological challenges of biofuels are well known. For this reason, we argue that focus on oil futures should shift away from attention on oil as purely a scarcity problem toward a focus on managing the impacts (both social and environmental) of oil substitution.

Readers are welcome to download the model used in our study and to explore the issues using an easy-to-use interface.

I sent this followup question:

In considering climate change implications, it would seem that this work identifies priority areas for developing carbon-neutral or lower-carbon fuels — i.e., biofuels for aviation or, say, Qatar’s process for turning natural gas into a jet fuel. Is that fair to say?

Here’s Brandt’s reply:

Yes, definitely. Historical data show robust demand for air and freight energy use as a function of wealth. That is, we like to keep flying and buying things even if we are not wanting to spend more time in traffic. Therefore, substitutes with climate benefits in these sectors would be strategically very important. Air is a well-known challenge due to the required energy densities of fuels. Freight seems to have more options in the near-term (e.g., electrification of rail or LNG for long-haul trucking).

In considering this work, of course, it’s important to keep in mind the track record of energy forecasts, more generally. But there’s an interesting theme here to watch.