America and the rest of the world are being brought face to face with the harsh realities of energy and environment. As much as America has tried to, we can't control the rest of the world. We do have power to make choices about our own future and to influence the choices of others. Are we ready to make hard choices? I am inclined to doubt it.
There are three previous diaries in this series. They can be found here.
Economics Of Alternative Energy
Economics Of Alternative Energy - Part II
Economics Of Alternative Energy - Part III
President Obama has called for an initiative comparable to the Manhattan Project and the space program that resulted in the moon landings to change America's energy future. He is by no means alone in using that analogy. There is no doubt that humanity is on a collision course with the resources of planet Earth. It would certainly require a massive shift to divert us from that collision. What I wish to look at is the prospects for an undertaking of such magnitude within the next few years. When I talk about significant change in energy patterns, this is the perspective from which I am viewing the issue.
The Manhattan Project was carried out in deepest secrecy. Most members of congress including Truman and his investigative committee knew nothing about it. The bombing of Pearl Harbor created a national consensus that the nation should devote its full resources to winning the war whatever that might take. Congress virtually gave the president a blank check. Prior to December 7, 1941 it had been apparent for more than three years that the world was being consumed by war. However, Americans had continued to try to convince themselves that they could avoid it and that it was not their problem. The space program was sold on the basis of the threat of the cold war.
Up until now there has been no indication that anything like a majority of Americans, to say nothing of the large majority that is requires to form a strong national consensus, have viewed the need for a radically different energy program as any sort of national priority. There are certainly a lot of people upset about the situation in the Gulf, but the results of a recent poll showing that a majority still supports offshore drilling would strongly suggest that they aren't all THAT upset.
Despite Spill, Most Americans Back Offshore Drilling
The first problem is defining the goals that should be accomplished by an energy policy. Global warming/climate change is one issue that gets a great deal of discussion. To set the record straight I will briefly summarize the perspective I am coming from on that issue. I definitely agree that we are entering a cycle of climate warming. The planet has been going through such cycles for eons. They were happening before homo sapiens came on the scene. However, this is likely the first major climate shift to occur since the industrial pollution revolution. I have no question that human activities are exacerbating the process. It certainly seems plausible that if we could achieve a global reduction in greenhouse gases it would mitigate the process. There are of course still quite a lot of people who are unwilling to accept even those really basic notions.
Then comes the question of what would have to be accomplished to have a substantive impact on global warming. That is a question for which no one has a definitive answer. It would require a crystal ball to know what is actually going to happen in the future. However, it seems to me that in order to have a big impact you would have to have a big change in emissions. By big I mean something like 30-50% or more. I really can't see that something like 2-5% is going to make a noticeable impact on something as large and complex as the planet's climate. I am sure that there are people who will disagree with that, but that is my view. I am also sure that nobody can conclusively prove which view is correct. If one is looking at energy policy primarily from the view of climate change, then the reduction of carbon based emissions becomes the primary consideration. However, I think that there are other issues that also deserve major consideration.
There are a substantial number of people who think that an energy Manhattan Project would produce some stunning technological breakthrough that would produce cheap and abundant supplies of energy. I think that is quite unlikely. We know what the available energy sources are. We have technology to exploit them. That technology will be improved incrementally. Greater production will lead to economies of scale. However,
There will be no magic bullet.
There is no philosopher's stone.
There is no fountain of youth.
Realistic energy policy means working with the options that we have at hand.
Nuclear energy can be positively evaluated from a couple of perspectives. Its co2 emissions are much lower than fossil fuels. It offers greater independence from imports than oil, but uranium supplies are also in limited supply. Beyond that it has numerous safety and environmental risks and concerns. Disposal of the radioactive waste is an unresolved issue. Any expansion of nuclear power plants would seem to me as something to be greeted with grave concern.
Hydroelectric power produces clean renewable energy. However it too has its drawbacks. Reservoirs flood otherwise usable and productive land. The world has seen about 2 dozen catastrophic dam failures. I highly recommend the book Cadillac desert: the American West and its disappearing water
By Marc Reisner
It provides an historical survey of the history of dam building in the US and makes what I think is a convincing argument that the most feasible sites have already been developed. It seems to be a general principle of energy development that as it moves to less accessible and feasible sites the risk of development increase proportionately.
Geothermal power has been seen as an attractive prospect.
Where it is readily accessible from natural outlets to the surface, its exploitation is relatively simple. However, such opportunities are limited in number. Projects are now moving into the area of drilling deeper into the earth. If you get deep enough there is plenty of energy down there in the earth's core. However, the risk of triggering seismic activity begins to increase.
Huge Geothermal Power Project Could Cause Quakes
I live in California in an area that has numerous faults. There is currently a geothermal drilling project about 30 miles from me. It is making a number of people in the area nervous.
That leaves with solar radiation and wind power, both of which are clean and generally safe.
Another part of the equation in addition to changing the supply of energy to cleaner and safer sources, is reducing the demand for energy. There are numerous ways in which funds can be invested toward such ends. Smart grids that manage energy distribution are one attractive innovation. Making buildings more energy efficient is another. The development of automobiles that run on electrically powered batteries would greatly reduce the demand for oil. However, the electricity has to be generated by some means. The small number of electric automobiles now being produced are commanding a stiff price that will limited them to the well to do. Our present transportation arrangements and patterns are based on the post war sprawl that has been deliberately promoted. To make mass transit options feasible and effective would require rearranging where people live, work and shop. All of these things are going to cost some body money.
It is my view that free markets are not going to solve the energy problem. The pure market incentive is to push the cost onto somebody else wherever possible. Aggressive government intervention is going to be required. In the present global climate of austerity the prospects for tax subsidies don't look promising. Germany and France have been subsidizing the development of alternative energy sources. Both of those countries are making large reductions in their subsidies as part of their massive budget reductions. Governments can tax energy consumption and require the inclusion of energy efficient features in new buildings. Successfully passing such legislation requires political consent.
There is another important way in which energy policy is different form the Manhattan Project or the space program. Those undertakings had a clear and specific end goals. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima exploded. Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. An effective energy policy must be sustained in continuous operation over a period of years. In our present political climate the public seems to divide on most major issues. When legislation is passed it is usually by a narrow margin. They is no assurance that policies adopted by one administration will be followed by a new administration.
Energy policy is fundamentally economic policy. The present hodgepodge has economic cost. Those are being dramatically demonstrated in the Gulf. What ever regulations are put in place before deep water drilling is resumed, as I'm certain it will be, will cost the oil companies money. They will pass those cost on to the consumer. It seems to me probable that Americans will be forced to use energy differently and to use less of it. It seems unlikely that such changes will come about from a coherent national plan, but from a series of disasters that increase the cost while still causing degradation to the environment. There may be a cumulative point that will serve as the environmental Pearl Harbor, but it is not here yet. If that defining moment doesn't arrive then this is what the world can look forward to as its future.