The oil outlook
 ENLARGE |
Lippert: We need a "portfolio of solutions."
|
|
| |
Now let's turn to the Malthusians in the oil patch. Fifty-two years ago, a Texas geophysicist named M. King Hubbert unveiled a theory of oil production that has entered the realm of conventional wisdom. Hubbert believed that the productivity of any oil patch — or even the entire world oil supply — followed the shape of a bell curve.
In 1956, he predicted that the United States' oil production would peak in the late 1960s or early 1970s, then start to decline. Later, he predicted that the world's oil production would peak in 1995.
Oil experts still argue about that. It isn't easy to measure the world's oil reserves, because oil producers lie about them. Saudi Arabia, for example, considers its oil reserve data to be a state secret. Are we running out of oil? And if so, what should we do?
Andreas Lippert has been thinking about that. As director of GM's Global Energy Systems Center, it's his job to figure out which fuels will be sufficiently plentiful, cheap and clean — hence, acceptable for General Motors. For the record, Lippert agrees with various oil companies that argue Hubbert was too pessimistic.
Even so, he says, it's important to move toward other fuels. Since demand for oil keeps rising, he says, we will be subject to rising prices and periodic shortages. Not a pretty picture if you rely solely on gasoline. And Lippert says no single fuel can take oil's place.
"We need to have a portfolio of solutions," he says. GM's portfolio will include ethanol, electric batteries, petroleum and fuel cells that run on hydrogen, Lippert says.
Will fuel cells ever be cheap enough for the mass market? Lippert quotes a recent study sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, which predicts that 2 million hydrogen-powered vehicles will be on the road by 2023.
While GM is investing in those new technologies, it doesn't seem likely that the automaker or any of its rivals can single-handedly create a new supply of fuel or the infrastructure to distribute it. In past centuries, infrastructure meant things like highways and railroads — and that meant government, or at least government subsidies. But Hubbert didn't have much faith in politicians, and instead helped launch a movement called Technocracy Inc., which proposed to replace money with a unit of currency dubbed energy certificates.
Lippert isn't ready to go that far. But it's fair to ask whether the auto industry and our government have the foresight to deal with a scarcity of oil.
To visualize a healthy transportation industry in the century ahead, one must assume an unprecedented degree of cooperation between government and industry. If hydrogen is part of the answer, for example, government will have to help get it to the miracle cars that the industry creates. The details — and the form that those solutions will take — will be fascinating raw material for the historians who study GM's second century.
And what part will GM play in this work in progress?
Consider the oft-misquoted remark of former GM Chairman Charles Wilson: "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."
Fifty years ago, GM's critics took Wilson's remarks as proof of GM's arrogance. Perhaps Wilson simply meant that GM's welfare was inextricably intertwined with the nation's own.
This account of General Motors' products, ads, strikes, inventions, wars, moon buggies, Motoramas, scandals, near-bankruptcies and overseas adventures is an exciting chronicle of GM's — and the nation's — wild ride through the last century.
But perhaps the chronicle written a century from now will make it seem tame by comparison. |