1. World Energy-Economy scenarios with system dynamics modelling Carlos de Castro, Luis Javier Miguel, Margarita Mediavilla University of Valladolid Spain

2.  Oil extraction  GDP per capita  Population + +  Technology + Geological Effort - Mental models…

3.  Oil extraction  GDP per capita  Population Geological Effort  Technology + + + - “economic world” IPCC, WEC, IEA… “geophysic world” ASPO, Laherrère… Feedbacks!!! Hubbert: If there are not demand constraints, World oil peak before 2000 But there are demand constraints always! If ASPO are right the economic consequences of a declining oil extraction will cause feedback on the decline oil extraction IPCC: We have plainty of resources. But there are geophysical constraints in any case. World is not flat We must consider feedbacks

4.  Oil extraction  GDP per capita  Population + +  Technology + Geological Effort -  Net Energy + +  Rest of energies + Hypothesis “Hirsch” Economic constraints +

5.  Energy lost  Oil extraction  GDP per capita  Population + +  Technology + Geological Effort -  Net Energy + +  Rest of energies + Geophysical constraints Reserves Extraction + - Hypothesis “Hubbert” Hypothesis “Hall”

6.  Oil extraction  GDP per capita  Population + +  Technology + Geological Effort -  Net Energy + +  Rest of energies Hypothesis “UN” Hypothesis “Ayres”

7.  Net Energy  Rest of energies

8. Non renewable energies (Coal, non-conventional oil, natural gas, uranium) “optimistic scenario”: Renewables without economical or technological feedbacks. (Ad hoc) EROEI = ∞ Future energies (fusion…) Renewable energies (biomass, hydro, rest)

9. Linear projection Following population Technical maximum (Zerta) Needed to “not stop” growing

10. Model Hypothesis Hypothesis UN: World population following UN median estimations. Hypothesis Ayres: technological innovation (Technology). Technology = Min (b· TIME, 0.03) Hypothesis Hubbert: Geological effort. Effort = C · Annual extraction/Reserves Hypothesis Hirsch: GDP-Energy relationship  GDP per cápita = A(t)·  oil extraction + B(t)·  energy production  Oil extraction =  population +  GDP percapita + Technology - Effort time Technology 3% 1985 2015 1 0 0.5 1985 20052035 B(t) A(t) year Oil dependency Energy dependency

11. “optimistic” scenario

13. If there were a feedback from economy to technology and from economy to renewables? Pessimistic scenario

14.  Energy lost  Oil extraction  GDP per cápita  Population + +  Technology + Geological Effort -  Net Energy + +  Rest of energies + + + Hypothesis “Meadows” Technology = T0+Ln(GDPpercapita)  Renewables production = a + b·  GDP percapita + +

15. Pessimistic scenario

16. Are “pessimists” pessimists or optimists?

17. Optimistic scenario. Estimations of CO 2e emissions. The estimated emissions are similar to the more optimistic emission predictions of the IPCC. We represent 4 of the most representatives but extremes SERS scenarios (IPCC2001). IPCC is only CO 2 (not CO 2e ) but include CO 2 from cement manufacture and other industrial process. Our CO 2e is more or less the same as IPCC CO 2 emissions from 1990 to 2005. Dangerous level (including non fossil related emissions)

18. Point of bifurcation, Now!!! The end of present civilization Our models show similarities with Chaotic systems

19. References: ASPO2008: R. Koppelaar (2008). “Oil watch monthly”. ASPO-Netherlands. 24 January 2008. Ayres2005: Ayres RU and J van den Bergh (2005): “A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms” Ecological Economics 55(2005):96-118 EWG2006: Energy Watch Group: “Uranium resources and nuclear energy” (2006). Germany. EWG2007: Energy Watch Group: “Coal: resources and future production” (2007). Germany. Farrell2007: Adam R. Brandt & Alexander E. Farrell (2007): “Scraping the bottom of the barrel: greenhouse gas emission consequences of a transition to low-quality and synthetic petroleum resources” Hall2005: Hall C. and C Cleveland: “EROEI: definition, history and future implications”. ASPO-US conference, November 2005. Hirsch2008: R L. Hirsch (2008): “Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios” Energy Policy 36 881–889 Hubbert1956: MK Hubert: “Nuclear energy and the fossils fuels”. Spring Meeting (Texas) of the American Petroleum Institute. IIASA1998: “Global Energy Perspectives” Edited N. Nakicenovic, A. Grübler y A. McDonald. IIASA (Internacional Institute for Applied Systems Analysis). Laherrere2005: J. Laherrère (2005): "Forecasting production from discovery” ASPO-meeting. Lisbon May 19-20, 2005 Meadows 2002: D. Meadows, J Rangders y D Meadows (2006): “Los límites del crecimiento 30 años después”. Galaxia Gutenberg y Círculo de Lectores. Meadows1972: “DH. Meadows et al.: “Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind”, New American Library, 1977 WEO2004: World Energy Outlook. Internacional Energy Agency. Zerta M, et al. “Alternative World Energy Outlook (AWEO) and the role of hydrogen in a changing energy landscape”. Int J Hydrogen Energy (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.01.044

23.  hypothesis Hirsch: This hypothesis establishes the relationship between the energy production and the GDP and we base it on the conclusion of Hirsch (2008) who states that world oil production growth and world GDP growth are strongly connected. Percentual variation of the GDP, per capita GDP and oil production. Sources: elaborated from BP2007, United Nations, wikipedia and WEO2004  Oil extraction  GDP per cápita +  Energy + + +  GDP per cápita = A(t)·  oil extraction + B(t)·  energy production  Oil extraction =  population +  GDP percápita + Technology - Effort

24.  Hypothesis Meadows: This hypothesis, which we only use in the “pessimistic” models, describes the relationship between the technological innovation and GDP. It is based on the ideas of Meadows (1972, 2002) that established that the capital available for the technological advance depends on the GDP and if the growth stagnated it will tend to grow more slowly. Technology = MIN(b*(TIME+20),0.02)*(a+LN(GDP per capita))  Renewables production = a + b·  GDP per capita

25.  Hypothesis Hall: We will lose energy for the production of energy (energy return on energy investment concept, Hall2005). Following Hall, oil invested in energy production increases quickly relative to net oil production; exponentially?  “Exponential E Lost ”: For each unit of a non renewable energy we lose energy proportional to energy production modulated by an exponential over time.  “Effort E Lost ”, “Reserves EROEI”: The energy lost of a resources j depends approximately on the Effort of the rest of energies.

26. Next 10 years we will lose 0,5-1Gboe/year more than now EROEI oil4 nc oil<2 natural gas8 (LNG)3 coal17 uranium2,5

27. E(j,i) is the energy of resource j to extract and process the resource i The more E i the more E L (j,i) Proportional to E j relative to E T The less Reserves, the more Energy to extract the resource i

29. Hypothesis Hubbert : describes the idea established by Hubbert (1956): the discoveries of oil fields and the production of oil (the same apply to the rest of non renewable resources like non conventional oil, coal, gas or uranium) vary with the stocks of undiscovered resources and/or reserves respectively. Therefore the less stock there is to be extracted (discovered) the more difficult it is to increase the annual extraction of this resource. Pessimistic Scenario Optimistic Scenario

30. Testing Hubbert (+ Ayres) USA (-Alaska) oil discoveries and production.