All in all, I’m convinced that without some social/economic incentives, the transition from fossil fuels to alternative fuels is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a full-blown crisis. As I read the newspaper every day, I see things that government and private enterprise need to do now, things they need to do soon, and things that need to be done in the future to help us accomplish the transition to new energy systems. Here is a list of some of those things.
Proposed energy program for federal and local governments
Build federally funded solar and wind plants to produce gas and liquid fuels. Within the next year, the Department of Energy should build a 10-MW solar energy plant and a 10-MW wind energy plant whose output is used only to produce gaseous and liquid fuels, as a start on the technological development that will be needed in the future.
Put a similar installation on a military base. In addition to the 2009 Department of Defense decision to fund research for algae-produced renewable F-76 Naval Distillate fuel (which is a good development and probably should expand), the Department of Defense should build a solar/wind facility of similar size on a military base to produce liquid fuels for military vehicles. Both Department of Energy and DOD facilities would have a number of small gas turbines—aircraft jet engines slightly modified to generate electricity from liquid fuels to test the new fuels. (Note: These are already in use to meet peak power demand at many locations.)
Use land on military bases for wind and solar installations to supply energy beyond the bases. Many military bases have large land areas that serve as buffers from the rest of the country for the safety of citizens. Some of these large tracts are available for biological conservation and could be used for wind and solar energy generation. This has been discussed for several decades for Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California.
Increase federal funding for alternative-energy research and development. U.S. political leaders currently propose spending from zero to $10 billion a year for alternative-energy research and development. The president and Congress should greatly increase this amount.
Level the subsidy playing field, by either eliminating all subsidies (probably a political impossibility) or equalizing subsidies (also a politically difficult feat). Ideally, eliminate all subsidies for oil and gas, and use that money instead to fund alternative energy. Or revise the conditions of these subsidies so that the oil and gas companies use them to develop liquid fuels from alternative-fuel electricity.
Encourage development of ocean energy. Private funds, from foundations and individuals, should be used to establish a series of prizes for technological development of ocean energy and for vehicles that use forms of alternative energy.
Popularize vehicles that use alternative energy. Establish an automobile race like Australia’s solar-energy-car race but in this case including vehicles powered by wind, solar, or ocean energy that has been converted to electricity or a liquid fuel. This will attract attention to research and development of such vehicles and boost their popularity.
Offer a prize for the first rocket to launch a satellite into Earth’s orbit using liquid and gas fuel produced from electricity generated by wind and solar energy.
Enhance building codes in cities and towns to require improved efficiency of space heating and cooling and require the new highly insulating windows.
Refit government buildings to save energy, using the best insulation and windows to improve efficiency of space heating and cooling.
Reduce the need for private cars in cities, not by punitively taxing the use of cars but by improving public transportation, making walking and bicycling safer and more attractive, and promoting such things as ZIP cars, and concentrating development around “intermodal transportation” hubs—locations where several kinds of transportation come together. Much of the technology to do this exists now.
Embark on a major program to improve rail travel.
For example:
• Provide railroad subsidies equal to highway subsidies.
• Provide high-speed rail from Boston to Washington; Washington to Atlanta; Los Angeles to San Francisco; San Francisco to Seattle. To do this, revise the EPA and OSHA rules and other rules so that French, German, or Japanese train technology can be used directly in the United States, rather than the unnecessarily heavy and perhaps unworkable current Acela designs.
• Revise railroad rules to give passenger trains the right-of-way when both they and freight trains use the same tracks.
• Improve the nation’s train tracks and roadbeds.
• Link major airports of major cities to the central city by high-speed rail.
Boost employment and help conserve energy during economic downturns. When many people are out of work, the federal government should establish the Civil Energy Corps, which would
• Employ people to retrofit government buildings and private residences with energy-saving materials such as wall insulation, weather stripping, and insulated windows;
• Employ landscape architects to plan, design, and develop wind and solar facilities that not only generate energy but also improve landscape aesthetics.
Improve public access to energy information. For example, the Department of Energy says that it is no longer reporting the costs of dealing with nuclear waste. Reinstate public access to this vital information.
Major conclusions
What won’t work
Natural gas cannot make America energy-independent without major environmental damage—and even with it, available reserves may be insufficient.
• Within U.S. lands and waters, natural gas accessible by known technology will last only a year or a few years; the rest is in methyl hydrates (which lie in the deep ocean or in permafrost), coal gas, and shale. The technology to mine these is in limited development, and its success remains unknown.
Conventional nuclear power plants cannot make America energy-independent at a reasonable cost. The supply of uranium ore is too limited, and as world demand for it increases, the price will rise rapidly. At present, nuclear power plants are also among the more expensive to build.
• To replace the use of fossil fuels in the U.S., 468 new nuclear power plants will be needed by 2050, almost ten per state. This is just not likely to happen.
• Nuclear power plants have a fixed lifetime, after which they have to be dismantled and their radioactive wastes stored and protected for a long time.
• Contrary to assertions by nuclear-power enthusiasts, dealing with radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants remains an unsolved problem in the United States.
• Except for one or two experimental reactors, no commercial nuclear power plants have yet been completely dismantled.
Nonconventional nuclear power plants are not yet ready for prime time—breeder reactors, large-scale recycling of fuel for conventional nuclear reactors, and fusion reactors are still in the research-and-development stage for large-scale and widespread installations.
• Fusion has yet to prove technically possible after a half-century of research and attempted development
• There are few operating breeder reactors in the world, and it is unclear which and how many are actually “breeding” in an environmentally benign and cost-effective way.
• Little recycling of spent conventional nuclear fuel is being done, and it is unclear whether this will be technologically possible in ways that are environmentally benign and cost-effective.
Conventional water power—large dams and reservoirs on major rivers—cannot increase in any significant way and is likely to decrease in the United States in the next 40 years.
• All the good U.S. sites are already in use.
• Many dams are likely to be breached or removed because of environmental concerns.
Deep-earth geothermal energy—from volcanically active areas, such as Hawaii and Yellowstone National Park—can be only a minor contributor to America’s energy. Not enough can be made available, and there are major environmental and cultural r
easons not to go this route.
Agrifuels—land crops grown to produce fuels, not food—are among the worst sources of energy. In most cases, they take more energy to produce than they yield, and even if they are slightly energy-positive, they cause great environmental damage and take land, water, and fertilizers away from food production. This is especially an economic problem for phosphorus fertilizers. In some places, land that provides habitat for threatened and endangered species or is useful in many other ways is being converted to growing fuel crops. All in all, agrifuels should be avoided.
What’s questionable
Ocean power offers some potential. Even though the most optimistic estimates suggest that this cannot be the key to America’s energy independence, still, research and development should be supported and expanded.
Coal is sufficiently abundant to make America energy-independent, but, contrary to conventional wisdom, will not be a cheap alternative. Taking into account the 5% annual social discount factor, plus purchases of coal for fuel, and the costs of pollution impacts, coal is much more expensive than wind. In fact, for coal to be cost-competitive with wind would require a government subsidy exceeding $100 a ton—the cost of building coal-fired power plants, which appears to be rising rapidly.
What will work
Nonconventional water power—such as submerged turbines in free-flowing rivers—could make some small contribution, insignificant nationally but perhaps useful locally in certain areas.
Low-level geothermal energy is one of the cheapest and best ways to heat and cool buildings and can be an important contributor to America’s energy independence. This is energy that originates from the sun or in some cases from the Earth itself and is stored in soils, rocks, and underground water. For political and cultural, and technological reasons, it’s hard to estimate how much energy this can provide in the next 40 years. A major increase in research, development, and installation of existing technology is needed.
Wind today is as cheap as any energy source, and in the future, taking into account net present value, cheaper than any alternative. Wind will be one of the major sources of energy in the future, and its use is increasing rapidly. It can provide a large fraction, but not all, of our energy needs.
Solar energy is the largest and most reliable source, with a potential greatly exceeding what people could ever use in the next centuries, but at present it is expensive. Today’s off-the-shelf devices convert 20% of solar energy into electricity. Great scaling up is needed, and the technology is there. However, right now solar energy is much more expensive than wind, coal, or low-level geothermal.
• Like it or not, solar is going to be a major contributor to America’s future energy supply. How costly it will be depends on how much research and development goes into it.
• The 2008 total cost of importing oil equals about 37% of the amount required to transition to solar and wind by 2050.
The one great hope for biofuels is microorganisms—algae and bacteria. Some of these can produce methane (natural gas), biodiesel, or ethanol directly, without distilleries and expensive transportation adding to the production cost. But this energy source is only in the exploratory stage. The potential appears great, but as yet, it’s impossible to estimate how much these could contribute over the next 40 years.
Using organic wastes as fuels—waste cooking oil, wastepaper—can contribute to our energy efficiency, and it certainly is a more efficient use of wastes than dumping them in the ground. However, these are not net energy sources; using them recovers some of the energy stored in them.
What else is needed?
Improved energy transport. None of the energy sources—neither fossil fuels nor conventional or unconventional alternatives—can satisfy America’s energy needs without major improvements in the way we transport energy. This requires extending the electrical grid and developing a smart grid. It also requires a kind of reverse refinery, where liquid fuels can be produced economically from electricity and then transported by pipelines, railroads, and trucks.
• Further improvements will involve microgrids and land-use plans that bring heavy users of energy closer to energy sources so that energy will have to be transmitted only short distances without using a national grid or pipelines.
• Off-the-grid local installations of wind and solar can contribute to America’s energy independence in ways not possible before.
America’s energy independence also requires improved and extended energy storage, both for specific devices (better batteries) and for large-scale installations.
Right now, it is unclear whether batteries or liquid fuels will be the best energy source for autos, trucks, and buses in the future. We have become so used to gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel), and diesel that we forget what marvelous energy-storers they are. It’s going to be hard to replace them but perhaps not necessary if we learn to make them from algae, bacteria, and electricity-operated reverse refineries.
A final word
In sum, I believe that America needs abundant energy. It is necessary for our leadership in science and technological development, for our culture, arts, humanities, health and welfare, and also appears important to democracy, as energy-poor people need to focus more on survival than on political science. I also believe that Americans can continue to have abundant energy, not by becoming energy misers but with improved energy conservation and the use of energy sources that are environmentally benign and cost-effective. We can achieve this with little or no change in our standard of living or in the quality of our lives. In fact, it could lead to an improvement in both.
I have tried to provide objective information and analysis that citizens of a democracy can use to arrive at their own conclusions about what needs to be done to ensure an ample energy supply for the future. But stepping out of my role as a scientist, I have to say that the implications of the information seem clear, and it would be incorrect to leave the matter without telling you what it means to me and what I believe needs to be done and should be done. For what it’s worth, here is my judgment.
Today the energy debate is sometimes expressed as only a subset of the debate about global warming. But we need to move away from fossil fuels for a number of reasons:
1. They are going to run out. Oil will run out soonest, and as we are already seeing, its diminishing availability is causing its price to rise rapidly (which petroleum experts have for years been warning would happen).
2. Moving away from oil and natural gas is in the best interest of America’s foreign policy and military security and the safety of its citizens.
3. Petroleum is made up of many compounds that are used in manufacturing all the plastic articles, too numerous to count, that we use every day. Rather than burn it, we should save petroleum for those uses. They require considerably less than what we burn, so the petroleum we have left will last longer.
4. The trade-off for petroleum’s wonderful fuel derivatives—gasoline, diesel, and kerosene—is their toxicity and their pollution. We have learned to live with these to some extent, but they are not the best choice for our health and for other living things.
If the diminishing supply of oil and gas weren’t forcing us to seek other energy sources, these considerations, and current concerns about global warming, would make a strong case for moving away from petroleum and natural gas as soon as possible.
As for nuclear power, the abundant writings about it, while claiming that it is safe, rarely discuss realistically the potential costs of dealing with radioactive waste and nuclear accidents. Having worked with radioactive materials and in an experimentally radioactive ecosystem, I disagree. I am convinced that it is in the best interests of humanity and civilization that we choose an energy path that minimizes pollution of all kinds and promotes, to the extent that it can, the beauty of landscapes, the diversity of life on Earth, and the livability of our villages, towns, and cities.
Even if you don’t agree, let me reiterate that, like fossil fuels, nuclear fuel
is in short supply and will likely run out in 40 or 50 years or less, which in itself makes it pointless to invest in infrastructure based on it.
The analyses I put together in writing this book suggest that moving away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy is possible but expensive. I concluded that we should pursue the two most viable alternative sources of energy: solar and wind. We should also pursue the development of energy from the ocean, and seek ways to use all of our energy sources as efficiently as possible. We should do these things because they will be best for our descendants, their civilizations, their creativity, health, welfare, and happiness, and best for all of life on Earth.
Powering the Future: A Scientist's Guide to Energy Independence Page 30