AN ALTERNATIVE TO “PROTECT THE OIL” AS U.S. ENERGY POLICY
I spent my career analyzing energy and environmental policy. A few things are clear to me as a result.
We cannot solve our energy problems with “new sources of supply”--not with acceptable economic or environmental consequences.
This is particularly true of increased coal use. Unfortunately, coal used in any way—direct firing, electricity generation or gasification—produces extremely large quantities of carbon dioxide--the primary greenhouse gas, other air pollutants and massive amounts of solid wastes. To increase coal use responsibly we would have to find an acceptable way to permanently sequester, i.e., lock up, the carbon dioxide and solid wastes—still an elusive goal as far as I know.
This is also true of nuclear energy. We have yet to find an acceptable way of disposing of nuclear wastes, including the old plants themselves. And, in an age of terrorism…need I say more?
Ethanol and other “bio-fuels” are produced from grain, so we’d be diverting food from a world in which many are still starving. That might not stop us, but the impact on consumer prices at home ultimately will.
Sounds gloomy, but actually there is a viable way forward: Conservation. Not just turning down the thermostat, but deployment of high efficiency energy production and use technologies. It worked in the 1980s, and it can work again for the long-term.
This is not a pipe dream. After the energy shocks of the late 1970s and early 1980s there was an enormous increase in the efficiency with which energy was found, produced and used. We were on the right track, if only we had stayed on it. Instead, we reacted to moderating energy costs with SUVs and giant homes.
I borrowed the title of this posting from a 1992 study, An Alternative Energy Future, that, among other things, took the rates of technology and efficiency improvements of the 1980s and projected them into the future[i] Had we stayed on that track, total energy consumption would have been stabilized according to the study, with a resulting reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, lower consumer energy bills, an improved balance of trade and increased employment. I believed it then, and believe it still.
But, we are where we are, as they say. So, what should we do now? First, we must admit that U.S. energy policy today mostly amounts to (1) Keep government out of the marketplace, and (2) Protect the oil supply. We have to have a more thoughtful policy.
First, do no harm! In the 1980s it was largely the marketplace responding to higher prices with better technology that made the difference and restored supply/demand balance. If energy prices stay “high” and if government stays out of the way I believe matters will mostly take care of themselves.
But, we shouldn’t be unwilling to use government power where government has shown it can be successful. The stakes are too high. One positive role for government in the 1980s was efficiency standards. Government should put in place and enforce strict new vehicular mileage and appliance, end-use equipment and building efficiency standards.
We should also focus and greatly increase government research and development funding on high risk, high expense research into totally new, clean energy sources such as fusion and even science fiction-like technologies beyond fusion. If the Federal Government would only spend a fraction of what we’re spending in Iraq on these technologies, we might be able to avoid future Iraqs. I am admittedly way out of touch on today’s research and development funding levels, but I see that the Fiscal 2007 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is $4.1 billion—about 4 days worth of spending on Iraq. These technologies are probably the ultimate solution, yet industry really can’t afford to fund them in this era of stock market expectations for the current quarter. Would we rather spend our taxes forever on foreign wars or on domestic energy sufficiency?
Our friends in the electric utility and coal industries, as well as in manufacturing should resist the temptation to keep fighting to cast doubt on the reality that human energy use is changing the atmosphere with uncertain but potentially disastrous effects. i.e., climate change. Instead, focus your efforts and funding on sequestration and energy efficiency.
Finally, for so many who are opposed to offshore drilling, coal, nuclear energy, etc., please give up your matching his/her SUVs and 10,000+ square foot homes, and then we’ll talk. In the short and medium run, in spite of what I said at the beginning, we’re going to need all of the energy sources we can get to ease our need for foreign oil, with its disastrous military, political and economic consequences. But, we’ll also need some life style changes—as if terrorism and the Iraq War haven’t brought that already. Which lifestyle changes do we prefer?
We have to have an energy policy other than “Keep the government out of it” and “Protect the Oil”. Back when the price of crude oil was $20 per barrel economists used to say that the “real” cost borne by all of us was closer to $100 per barrel if all of the military and environmental costs of protecting and using the oil were “internalized” so that we saw them “at the pump”. I wonder what that figure would be today?
An energy future based on conservation and energy efficiency won’t be cheap, but neither is the policy we’re following today.
Copyright 2006 by Nelson E. Hay
[i] An Alternative Energy Future, Arlington, VA and Washington, D.C., The Alliance to Save Energy, American Gas Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, April 1992. Peer reviewed by the Center for Global Climate Change at the University of Maryland, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Global Change Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Worldwatch Institute.
We cannot solve our energy problems with “new sources of supply”--not with acceptable economic or environmental consequences.
This is particularly true of increased coal use. Unfortunately, coal used in any way—direct firing, electricity generation or gasification—produces extremely large quantities of carbon dioxide--the primary greenhouse gas, other air pollutants and massive amounts of solid wastes. To increase coal use responsibly we would have to find an acceptable way to permanently sequester, i.e., lock up, the carbon dioxide and solid wastes—still an elusive goal as far as I know.
This is also true of nuclear energy. We have yet to find an acceptable way of disposing of nuclear wastes, including the old plants themselves. And, in an age of terrorism…need I say more?
Ethanol and other “bio-fuels” are produced from grain, so we’d be diverting food from a world in which many are still starving. That might not stop us, but the impact on consumer prices at home ultimately will.
Sounds gloomy, but actually there is a viable way forward: Conservation. Not just turning down the thermostat, but deployment of high efficiency energy production and use technologies. It worked in the 1980s, and it can work again for the long-term.
This is not a pipe dream. After the energy shocks of the late 1970s and early 1980s there was an enormous increase in the efficiency with which energy was found, produced and used. We were on the right track, if only we had stayed on it. Instead, we reacted to moderating energy costs with SUVs and giant homes.
I borrowed the title of this posting from a 1992 study, An Alternative Energy Future, that, among other things, took the rates of technology and efficiency improvements of the 1980s and projected them into the future[i] Had we stayed on that track, total energy consumption would have been stabilized according to the study, with a resulting reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, lower consumer energy bills, an improved balance of trade and increased employment. I believed it then, and believe it still.
But, we are where we are, as they say. So, what should we do now? First, we must admit that U.S. energy policy today mostly amounts to (1) Keep government out of the marketplace, and (2) Protect the oil supply. We have to have a more thoughtful policy.
First, do no harm! In the 1980s it was largely the marketplace responding to higher prices with better technology that made the difference and restored supply/demand balance. If energy prices stay “high” and if government stays out of the way I believe matters will mostly take care of themselves.
But, we shouldn’t be unwilling to use government power where government has shown it can be successful. The stakes are too high. One positive role for government in the 1980s was efficiency standards. Government should put in place and enforce strict new vehicular mileage and appliance, end-use equipment and building efficiency standards.
We should also focus and greatly increase government research and development funding on high risk, high expense research into totally new, clean energy sources such as fusion and even science fiction-like technologies beyond fusion. If the Federal Government would only spend a fraction of what we’re spending in Iraq on these technologies, we might be able to avoid future Iraqs. I am admittedly way out of touch on today’s research and development funding levels, but I see that the Fiscal 2007 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is $4.1 billion—about 4 days worth of spending on Iraq. These technologies are probably the ultimate solution, yet industry really can’t afford to fund them in this era of stock market expectations for the current quarter. Would we rather spend our taxes forever on foreign wars or on domestic energy sufficiency?
Our friends in the electric utility and coal industries, as well as in manufacturing should resist the temptation to keep fighting to cast doubt on the reality that human energy use is changing the atmosphere with uncertain but potentially disastrous effects. i.e., climate change. Instead, focus your efforts and funding on sequestration and energy efficiency.
Finally, for so many who are opposed to offshore drilling, coal, nuclear energy, etc., please give up your matching his/her SUVs and 10,000+ square foot homes, and then we’ll talk. In the short and medium run, in spite of what I said at the beginning, we’re going to need all of the energy sources we can get to ease our need for foreign oil, with its disastrous military, political and economic consequences. But, we’ll also need some life style changes—as if terrorism and the Iraq War haven’t brought that already. Which lifestyle changes do we prefer?
We have to have an energy policy other than “Keep the government out of it” and “Protect the Oil”. Back when the price of crude oil was $20 per barrel economists used to say that the “real” cost borne by all of us was closer to $100 per barrel if all of the military and environmental costs of protecting and using the oil were “internalized” so that we saw them “at the pump”. I wonder what that figure would be today?
An energy future based on conservation and energy efficiency won’t be cheap, but neither is the policy we’re following today.
Copyright 2006 by Nelson E. Hay
[i] An Alternative Energy Future, Arlington, VA and Washington, D.C., The Alliance to Save Energy, American Gas Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, April 1992. Peer reviewed by the Center for Global Climate Change at the University of Maryland, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Global Change Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Worldwatch Institute.
posted by Nelson Hay | 5:31 PM
2 Comments:
Nelson, now that I have read this section of your blog on energy policy, I see it partially answers the question I raised about the way forward on global warming in the section outlining your published works.
Basically, I agree with you that conservation is critical, but I wonder if whatever conservation efforts are made in the United States, assuming they ever materialized, might be offset by the burgeoning energy needs of China and India in particular, not to mention the rest of the world. That being said, I think the first and most important step to be taken to get conservation back into focus in the U.S. would be increasing the mileage requirements for cars.
Your perspective seems to dismiss nuclear as a viable option. I think the article titled "The Nuclear Option" in the New York Times magazine of July 16, 2006 gives a fairly realistic assessment of the role nuclear power generation could play in addressing energy needs in the U.S. over the decades ahead. Personally, I think we have no choice but to reopen the nuclear option, given that it does not exacerbate global warming, given that current designs are many times safer than old ones, and given that the rest of energy policy seems to be going nowhere. It seems the electric utilities are coming to the same conclusion, albeit gingerly. Granted that nuclear waste disposal and old plant decommissioning are real issues, but some of the increased research you mention might be able to address those problems more effectively, too. As for terrorism, let's face it; there are already more than 100 nuclear plants operating in the U.S. and hundreds more in other countries, so one way or another, nuclear plants must be protected against terrorism.
In terms of biofuels, I do not think there is as direct a link between use of biomass for energy generation and world hunger as you suggest. If anything, we are producing more corn and other crops in this country than can be reasonably sold on the market. Witness the continued use of price subsidies. Also, witness the overuse of corn syrup and other sweeteners in foods to the detriment of our health. If I understand correctly, other grasses and organic inputs might also be viable producers of biofuel.
In general, I agree with Al Gore's perspective in "Inconvient Truth" that it is going to take a whole comprehensive set of actions, including conservation, biofuel, nuclear, and other technologies (wind/wave action etc.) to address global warming, and in my mind, that goes equally for world energy needs over the next century.
I'm certainly not opposed to biofuels, but there are no magic bullets. The total energy requirement and resulting emissions for producing them and bringing them to market have to be factored in, of course. My recollection is that ethanol, for example, which has to be distilled, turns out to be more politically attractive than environmentally attractive. But, biofuels can make a contribution. Ditto wind, solar electric, ocean thermal energy conversion, tidal energy, etc. We need 'em all.
The thing that really killed nuclear energy was economics. In the 1990s nuclear generated electricity couldn't come close to competing. A carbon tax would do much to help nuclear, but if we're going to incorporate one environmental impact (greenhouse gas emissions) shouldn't we incorporate the full environmental costs? I may be out of date, but last I knew (in the 1990s) nuclear remained an environmental nightmare. We can't even tear down the old plants because we can't find a place and method to safely dispose of the rubble. I'm not opposed to building some new nucs, and I think we will, but I'm nearly as afraid of fission nucs as I am of climate change. I wish that fusion, gravity wave, anti-gravity, matter/anti-matter or something would come along to save us, and I wish that Uncle Sam would put its "clean coal" money to work on these far out ideas. Even then we will have issues of how much heat load we can add to the atmosphere unless we change our energy-consuming ways!
Post a Comment
<< Home