Oil consumption in the twenty-seven countries of the European Union peaked in 2006 and has since been declining at a rate of 3% per year. Oil consumption in the transport sector in the EU began to decline in 2008, dropping 1.4% from 2007. Oil consumption in road transport fell, offsetting a continuing but slowing rise in air transport consumption.

Usings less oil than the U.S. does not mean the EU is less prosperous than the U.S. EU nations consume only 60% of the oil as the U.S., but  the gross domestic product of the combined 27 EU nations exceeds that of the U.S. by 15%.

This chart is posted at The Daily Reckoning:

As this chart posted at The Daily Reckoning shows, China has a long way to go to catch up with U.S. per capita energy consumption:

40% of the world’s population – China and India – uses two barrels of oil per person per day. In the US, we use 25.

China dismissed the IEA’s analysis, saying the IEA data on China’s energy use is unreliable. China’s National Bureau of Statistics said in a report in February that China’s energy consumption last year stood at 3.1 billion tons of standard coal equivalent, or 2.132 billion tons of oil equivalent. Even by China’s reckoning, China is fast approaching U.S. energy consumption levels.

In June, China consumed approximately 9.4 million barrels each and every day. Of this total, they imported 5.44 million barrels. Between them, China and India together now consume about 28 million barrels-per-day, nearly 33% of the world total.

But while China’s oil consumption is rising and China is busy locking up future oil supplies around the world, U.S. oil consumption is declining – and improved efficiency has nothing to do with it. Oil consumption has likely peaked in the United States because our economy is trashed and likely to remain so. In 2007, the last year before the crash, American oil consumption often exceeded 21 million barrels per day. Those days are over. U.S. consumption is now bouncing around 19 mbd, a decline of ~10%.

[W]e know that big, dense cities are greener; that the energy used in shipping food is a small portion of its overall impact, that transit is more energy efficient than driving (and indeed, that cars are the largest contributor to climate change), and that the benefits of urban living in compact, walkable, wired communities can extend far beyond living in smaller homes, served by more efficient infrastructure and not owning a car, to include a dramatic overall drop in one’s environmental impact. What’s more, we know why these things are so[.]

Unfortunately for people living in rural areas, we know a lot more about how to live a prosperous-yet-low-impact urban life than we do about how to live a rural life of equal prosperity with a small ecological footprint. Rural areas are poorer than urban areas, and offer fewer opportunities. Envisioning how people in rural areas  will be able to prosper and live decent lives  in an environment bereft of cheap and abundant energy is a challenge that has yet to be faced.

The three-part scheme can be laid out as follows:

1. Base load: plants operated at constant power output, at maximum whenever possible
2. Intermediate load: plants operated with slow variation in power output on regular schedule to follow expected variation in demand, to cover the gap between expected demand and expected base load
3. Peak load: plants operated with fast variation, responding to minute peaks in demand above or below the pre-planned part of supply

. . . and is illustrated in this graph:

If the majority of the lifetime costs of a power plant are upfront investment costs, then the unit costs of electricity produced will be the lower the more the plant is operated and the operator will want to operate it at maximum whenever possible (the very definition of base load).

In the lifetime costs of both wind power and photovoltaics, fixed, up-front investment costs dominate, so these renewable sources operate as part of base load. But unlike conventional base load, wind and solar are intermittent sources: power output depends on weather, time of day, and season. Distributing these sources over a grid spread out over a larger geographical area can reduce weather-related intermittency, but can’t make it go away.

De Souza’s piece examines ways of de-carbonizing base load and intermediate load, including hydro and pumped hydro, biomass, demand management, natural balancing, solar thermal with storage, nuclear, stimulated geothermal, and distributed storage (including flywheels, batteries, capacitors, fuel cells, etc). His conclusion? None are completely satisfactory -and probably most will be needed.

Aging nuclear facilities in the developed countries could mean this pattern will continue. The only group of countries showing an increase in nuclear power generation in 2009 was the “Remainder” group, which includes China, India, and many developing nations.

Gail the Actuary suggests growth in nuclear generation may be limited to a few countries which are able to finance new reactors – perhaps China and some other Asian nations. As old reactors are taken off line elsewhere, total nuclear electric generation may continue to decline.

Would any nuclear power plant ever get financed and built in the U.S. without federally funded support and federal limits on industry liability in case of an accident?

The flour makes a light dough and the pancakes taste just a tad sweeter than ordinary wheat flour.  * * * It is exceptionally high in some nutrients known to be important to human health and deficient in many modern diets: Omega 3 fatty acids, calcium, lutein, and betaine. It is particularly high in folate, important for preventing stroke, cancer, heart disease and infertility. Folate is also believed to be important for maintaining good mental health in old age.  My mind generally glazes over when reading about nutrient values of various foods so that folate might come in handy. To me the important thing is that for once something that is good for me tastes good too. Kernza ™ does not have enough gluten in it to use alone for leavened breads, but as more and more crosses are made with it and regular wheat, all things are possible.

Being able to grow grain without plowing up millions of acres of soil every year would cut down on erosion and help build soil tilth while enabling farmers to cut way back on fuel and greenhouse gas emissions – saving farmers both time and money in the bargain.

But the search won’t be over until researchers come up with a good perennial bread flour.

Any clouds on the horizon? Not according to the EIA. This graph shows projected energy consumption out to 2035.

Peak oil? Not a chance.

The growth in liquid fuel supplies is to be spurred by increased demand. Ask, and it shall be yours.

Here’s the most amazing projection: after steady declines for nearly 40 years, U.S. oil production is going to resume a growth track!

The odds of this scenario actually coming to pass were about nil – even before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. This is magical thinking at its most absurd.

If the EIA’s projections were to play out, what would that mean for efforts to stop global warming? Apparently, no one at EIA is even asking.

We ought to establish a new category here – for “fantasy” or maybe “fiction”.

According to the EIA report U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions fell by 7.0% last year. The downturn of the economy was responsible for only 2.4% of that reduction.

Population, per capita GDP, energy intensity of the economy, and carbon intensity of the energy supply all contribute to emissions. The only factor that increased in 2009 was population, by 0.9%. The remaining three factors – GDP, energy intensity, and carbon intensity – combined in roughly equal proportions to cause emissions to fall by 7.0%

The financial crisis hit the industrial sector of the economy the hardest, and energy usage by industry correspondingly fell the most – by 9.9%. Output from energy-intensive industries such as primary metals (-33.9%) and nonmetallic minerals (-17.4%) fell much faster than total industrial production, reflecting the fact that we’re outsourcing such production at the same time the service sector has been growing relative to the industrial sector of the U.S. economy. Also, carbon intensity fell due to fuel switching as the price of coal rose 6.8% from 2008 to 2009 while the comparable price of natural gas fell 48% on a per Btu basis.

But where CO₂ emissions occur doesn’t matter to the climate system. The fact that U.S. emissions (or those of other developed nations) are falling doesn’t matter much if those emissions are merely being “exported” elsewhere, primarily to China. And we’re exporting more than industrial production – we’re exporting energy and carbon intensity, as well. The result? China has now overtaken the U.S. to become the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases – and shows no sign of easing off. Coal is the basis of the Chinese economy, fueling over 80% of electricity generation. China’s already-enormous coal consumption – now three times U.S. consumption – is still growing, for example at an astonishing rate 28.1% from first quarter 2009 to first quarter 2010.

Even if falling U.S. emissions are a trend and not just a recession-related blip, falling U.S. emissions mean nothing if global emissions continue to rise.

As Gail the Actuary points out at The Oil Drum, what can’t happen, won’t:

Combine unprecedented consumption levels with furious growth rates and you quickly arrive at absurdities and impossibilities. As in, it won’t happen. The wheels will fall off the wagon first.

Reducing emissions will require reducing the production of “stuff” – and not only in the U.S., but also around the world. Global economic shrinkage is the only way out of our climate predicament, and our current focus on economic growth will have to be replaced by concern with economic justice.

Limited supplies of fossil fuels mean that “economic growth” as we know it will come to an end, sooner or later, whether we like it or not. The question that remains to be answered is, before the wheels do come off, will we have already set the world on a path to unstoppable warming? Or will we accept the inevitable and act in time to save the ecosystem that sustains us?

[D]espite the high oil price “wake up” call delivered to the US during the period 2005-2008, policymakers have been unable or unwilling to address the nation’s energy security, economic competitiveness that comes from affordable energy, and the potential jobs creation initiatives that a sound energy policy would and should deliver. Given the current trajectory of an aging infrastructure, decades of restrictions on drilling, failure to tackle the obstacles that prevent both more nuclear plant and clean coal plant projects, frittering at the edges of renewable energy, and avoidance of other energy “hard choices,” within the decade the nation faces an unprecedented energy abyss.

By 2020, there will be inadequate supplies of liquid fuels and electricity taking the nation toward inevitable gas lines, brown-outs, black-outs and extraordinary high prices.

The energy abyss will stick around for up to a full decade with all of the national insecurity, economic decline, joblessness and social malaise that accompanies energy shortages in third world countries.

The energy industry, despite its technological, geological, chemical, physical, molecular, logistical, scientific and engineering expertise and capacity to deliver affordable energy in endless supply, given all of the natural sources of energy in this country, and the world, will be unable to supply the demand because of public policy constraints. Yet, it will bear the brunt of the blame for energy shortages. Today’s energy professionals will bear the reputational burden of our national decline and failure because who else is blameable? Are you prepared to accept that blame, or are there viable alternatives, things you can do, to change the nation’s current trajectory?

Understanding the scope and depth of the energy system’s problems requires careful understanding of just how entrenched the obstacles are to sound enabling public policy. What do we do about “political time” dominance in the political process, up against “energy time” requirements to get projects launched and completed? How do you respond to the dysfunctional structures that our three independent branches of government have created over the course of time? Is it really necessary to have 13 executive branch agencies govern energy and the environment? Do we need 26 congressional committees and subcommittees writing legislation on energy? Should every federal district court have authority to delay and ultimately prevent citizens from having the energy they need because of the power of the judicial bench? How long can you tolerate the paralysis of partisanship where right and left wing interest groups, demagogues and authority figures, elected as well as appointed, prohibit mainstream, centrist Americans, most likely the majority of citizens, from achieving needed policy objectives? Are you willing to accept zigzag efforts to move energy policy forward forever?

The nation has to come to grips with its energy future sooner, not later. The time is now not then. We can’t wait for a ninth president and 19th congress to promise us whatever it takes to get elected and then lead us down another failed path. We should have learned by now but we haven’t.

One could object that Hofmeister blames the upcoming “energy abyss” on “public policy constraints” rather than geophysical or ecosystem constraints. But the very fact that an energy industry insider sees an energy abyss as inevitable should make folks sit up and take notice.

Of course other industry insiders, such as Matt Simmons, have been saying the same thing for years, for example in this presentation at the AON Annual Energy Insurance Symposium, January 14, 2010.

Even as the disastrous consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels unfold in the Gulf, we will continue to go about our business as usual.

At least until the next energy crisis, when it will be too late. Gail the Actuary at The Oil Drum states what should be obvious:

No one is really willing to look at what our energy future is really likely to look like, and plan and make regulations on that basis. In my view, we really should be planning for what industry and transportation will need to look like, with no (or very little) fossil fuels. We need to look at what kind of roads we can maintain, and what, if any, kinds of vehicles will be able to run on them. If we don’t look to see where we are really headed, it is hard to see that we can take steps that will get us in the right direction.

Rural development patterns enabled by cheap and abundant fossil fuels have energy and climate consequences, as almost 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with residences and cars. Changing development and transportation patterns can significantly impact energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Data that break down per capita CO2 emission rates along other important categories of the United States, such as by urban vs. suburban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, apartment dwellers vs. homeowners, or by ethnic/racial origin is hard to come by. But new studies are beginning to shed some light on the issue.

A 2008 report by the Brookings Institution found that the average American in a metropolitan area has a carbon footprint of 8.21 tons — 14% less than the average American living outside the city.

Edward L. Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard, reached a similar conclusion in a study titled The Greenness of Cities:  Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development. Glaeser and co-author Matthew Kahn found that cities generally have significantly lower emissions than suburban areas. The city-suburb gap is particularly large in older areas, like New York, which developed prior to the dominance of the automobile.

A new study titled Cities produce surprisingly low carbon emissions per capita appearing in the April issue of the journal Environment and Urbanization looked at cities in a variety of countries and, for the most part, affirms these findings. Analyzing the per capita emissions from 12 major cities in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, the study’s author, David Dodman of the International Institute for Environment and Development found that per capita emissions from cities were typically smaller, and often far smaller, than their nation’s averages.

For example, greenhouse gas emissions for New Yorkers are less than a third of those of the national average for the USA. Those of Barcelona residents are half the average for Spain. Londoners have little more than half the greenhouse gas emissions per person of the UK average. Brazil’s two largest cities, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have less than one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions per person of the average for Brazil.

Tokyo has considerably lower emissions per person than either Beijing or Shanghai, suggesting that prosperity need not inevitably result in greater emissions and that well designed and well governed cities can combine high living standards with much lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, the study cautions that emissions from manufacturing are currently allocated to the countries in which these greenhouse gases are produced, rather than to the locations in which the finished products are purchased and used.

The main driver of greenhouse gas emissions is unsustainable consumption, especially in the world’s more affluent countries.