smokestacks2851_1
Image

Tales of ultimate disaster caused by global warming fill today’s media, alongside accounts of impressive new technologies for clean, green, carbon-free, earth-saving energy. New energy corporations are drawing investment capital in steady streams, hoping for a portion of the financial bonanza to come from new energy ideas: better cars, more efficient boilers, vegetation that converts to oil, cleaner power plants; windmills sweeping across prairies, hilltops and seacoasts; and solar cells arrayed from horizon to horizon, powering entire communities. Most reporters tend to cover technology news by relying on the public relations machinery of government and corporate research laboratories. Still, their reporting on such trends has made energy a much discussed public issue. But is the public receiving an accurate picture of what we are facing as our oil and gas resources run out and the glaciers and ice caps melt? Or is something critical missing? Is a meaningful discourse actually taking place?

Clearly, there will not be enough oil to meet demand in coming years. Coupled with reports about atmospheric warming, that news ought by now to have incited a level of public outrage that so little is being done to create a future where the world’s countries collaborate on energy policy, making something positive out of what are now insufficiently connected approaches by individual states or small groups.

Yet the overall picture being presented to the public goes something like this: We’ll just proceed here and there with portions of this technology, portions of that, and somehow, in time, with everyone working in his or her niche, the future will solve itself through an automatically arranged pattern. Keep at it with capital market and government funding, and eventually a new age of energy will slip into history at just the right time. The picture assumes a future of carbon-free energy for the whole world, an inevitable slowdown in the rate of global warming and the mitigation of any permanent damage from use of fossil fuels. It also assumes that life will proceed largely unchanged, and that a system of global capitalism dependent on continuous, lavish spending will be confirmed. Poorer countries, as usual, will be left out.

Rising global temperatures, however, seem certain to produce destabilizing weather patterns, disruptions in agriculture and bizarre disease patterns. Some economies anticipate boom times from warming—such as those of northern nations, which foresee lucrative oil and mineral sources under a warmed and navigable Arctic ocean. On the whole, though, global warming will lead to massive disruptions across the planet, from more violent storm systems to diseases previously unknown in temperate regions to chaos in foreign affairs. No one will be unaffected. This underlines the need for a new sense of community among countries caught in the web of effects from warming.

However dire the global consequences of warming, that is only half the picture. What about the simple matter of producing energy for the relentless economic demand? The geopolitical issues connected with immense competition for oil in the future will be as threatening as the environmental issues related to global warming. Both threats make energy policy a huge and pressing issue for the United States, and we must begin planning and acting on our energy future immediately.

The “green” momentum visible everywhere, from neighborhoods to boardrooms, is exciting, genuinely encouraging, politically needed and technologically necessary. It is serious and should not be ridiculed. But neither should “going green” be perceived as a policy that will correct today’s critically dangerous course, one of slowness and disorganization. Something much more is needed: a big, thoughtful and vigorous examination of all the existing and impending resources and technologies, how they relate to one another and how near to an interconnected independence we and other countries can come.

Current and Future Energy Sources

No perspective on energy policy is possible without data on the use of and the prospects for each major energy source. The following energy assessments are based on many sources representing various energy interests.

Petroleum. The world has an assured supply of petroleum for 80 to 100 years. The United States presently accounts for 40 percent of petroleum consumption, mainly for transportation and source material for a huge variety of chemicals. Competing and increasing demands from China and India because of their own needs could drain much of that away. In the past, oil consumed was replaced by new exploratory finds. Since reserves can no longer be so easily retrieved, the United States cannot continue its profligate use of oil. Added sources of petroleum are tar sands and oil shale, but their conversion to petroleum is an energy-draining process that emits carbon dioxide, the notorious greenhouse gas. Our citizens must know that the oil supply could be exhausted in less than a century. We must move smartly to conserve what we have left and develop new and petroleum-free alternative systems and transportation modes for the future.

Natural gas. Global supplies are reckoned to be enough for about 70 to 90 years. The United States currently consumes 23 percent of the world’s supply, mainly for heating, electric utility power generation and production of industrial chemicals. The rationale for petroleum also holds for natural gas. This fuel is precious and should be reserved for only the most needed uses.

Coal. Our reserves are enormous: the United States has a 250-year supply of high-quality, low-sulfur coal. Today the United States uses 23 percent of the coal consumed worldwide, and coal-fired plants provide close to 50 percent of our electric power needs. But at what cost? Coal is dirty. It is an enormous challenge to figure out how to treat and burn coal so that it does not add to greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide. So far, research efforts have failed to produce low-cost technologies to convert carbon dioxide to harmless carbon products and water. The alternative is to store carbon dioxide underground in storage containers now used for oil and natural gas. However, many experts doubt such a plan will work because of the potential for leaks back into the atmosphere. Few believe that these and other approaches toward reducing the impact of coal combustion can save the planet from warming. But without coal, big changes in energy-generation technology will have to be made.

Nuclear energy. This is essentially in inexhaustible supply. Currently, 110 nuclear power plants meet 8 percent of the U.S. electrical power demand. Increased use is anticipated, and the percentage could rise as fossil fuel use declines. The major issues, however, are safe, permanent disposal of spent fuel and the reprocessing and safe recovery of fissionable materials. Some experts believe that such problems are near solution. Nuclear energy stirs up intense emotions, both for and against, so the issues need to be addressed and resolved in a thoughtful, considered way. Abroad, nuclear power provides 79 percent of France’s electricity, 28 percent of Germany’s, 28 percent of Japan’s and 20 percent of the United Kingdom’s. France and Japan in particular are committed to a nuclear future. Given the provisions of the This article appears in March 31 2008.