THE QUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND ITS IMPACT ON GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER – March 10, 2007

OIL AND ITS ALTERNATIVES:

Our civilization is based on fossil fuels. Oil, coal, and natural gas power our factories and light our homes. Petroleum products fuel vehicles of every sort, both civilian and military. Petroleum-derived plastics surround us, while petroleum-based lubricants literally keep the wheels of industry turning. We are a hydrocarbon society, right down to the asphalt in our streets. Fossil fuels have served us well, in that they have long been relatively cheap, while being a quite efficient source of power for the money.

This is the problem - our civilization has come to depend on abundant sources of fossil fuels, chiefly oil and natural gas, and in doing so we have laid a trap for ourselves. We will not “run out” of oil, in that suddenly there won’t be any, but growing worldwide consumption is rapidly depleting easily accessible sources. To keep up with the demand we will have to look further and further afield: in the Arctic and Antarctica, in deep ocean sites, in troubled developing countries. We are in a situation analogous to that of 19th century New England whalers, each year going out farther and staying away longer in search of diminishing numbers of whales.

While the details of the Hubbert’s Peak hypothesis, that oil is now becoming relatively more expensive as demand grows, may be debatable, the basic thrust of Hubbert’s argument is grimly accurate. In 1960 America imported just 4 quadrillion BTUs of petroleum products. By 2004 we were importing 27.68. Our total petroleum consumption more than doubled in this time period. In China the number of privately owned cars increased by 4.1 million in 2006 alone! China currently has 22 million privately owned automobiles. It is projected to have 140 million by 2020, just thirteen years from now.

All these internal combustion engines release hydrocarbons into the air, to join pollution from factories and power plants. The result has been global warming, the effects of which are daily becoming more apparent. Add this to smog, acid rain, and the destruction of ecosystems on land and on sea, and we have an untenable situation.

The state of the environment is also a national security matter. Environmental destruction on a wide enough scale can ravage the global economy as badly as war, or worse. Furthermore the bulk of available petroleum reserves are in the chronically unstable Middle East and Central Asia. The cost of maintaining troops in the Middle East to safeguard our access to the oil is colossal, and is a drain on the economy that we can no longer afford. It is also worth noting that two nations that America sees as threats, Iran and Venezuela, have their economies based on oil.

So by any standard: prices, environmental impact, or national security, continuing to base our society on fossil fuels is a losing proposition. It may not be the end of our civilization, but to stay with the status quo is to court serious trouble. We are in a losing game, with no winning moves, therefore it is time to change the game. What are our alternatives?

OPTIONS:

We can a) reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, b) find alternative sources of energy, or c) attempt a combination of the two. Let’s start with conservation. Some measures we can implement immediately are:

              1: Higher mileage standards for cars sold in the United States.

              2: Requiring common types of containers to be made from recyclable materials.

              3: Giving tax breaks to property owners who insulate their homes and offices or build them to be

                   more energy efficient.

              4: Build and refurbish mass transit systems for American cities.

These measures, while helpful, will not alone end our dependence on foreign oil. We could also impose additional gasoline taxes or broader hydrocarbon taxes. Or we could institute rationing. Either of these methods have problems. Gas taxes would be regressive, hitting the poor and the middle class disproportionately. They would also seriously hurt rural areas, and the Western States, where distances are much greater than east of the Mississippi. A rationing system would be more equitable, but would require the creation of a large bureaucracy, and would invite the creation of a black market that would line the pockets of organized crime. Furthermore, neither method would solve the basic problem of our needing fossil fuels.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES:

Three widely applicable alternatives to fossil fuels are already in use: hydroelectric power, nuclear energy, and wind power. Each of these has the advantages of being an “off the shelf” technology, where nothing new has to be invented, and can directly replace coal or oil burning power plants. Wind power has the added advantages of being perfectly suited for economically depressed areas of the Great Plains, as well as being a fine supplement to the power grid in remote areas.

But each of the three technologies has drawbacks and limitations. Wind power is not reliable everywhere in the country, or at all times of the year. Hydroelectric power requires dams that disrupt riverine ecosystems, while the best sites for dams are already use. Nuclear power plants have the advantage of being built anywhere, but require enormous investments of capital, as well as rigorous and expensive precautions in maintenance, in the disposal of radioactive wastes, and in the final disassembly of the plant at the end of its operational lifetime.

Geothermal power can be used in certain areas, such as Hawaii or parts of Alaska, where hot magma lies close to the surface, but will never be universally relied upon. The same applies to the use of tidal power to run turbines in coastal estuaries. Biomass, such as garbage or vegetation can be a useful source of methane or alcohol for fuels in certain cases. But the energy required to grow and fertilize corn, and then render it down to alcohol make it impractical on a large scale. In short, existing technologies will not be enough to solve the basic problem of our dependence on fossil fuels. We need something new.

Three promising technologies are solar power, hydrogen, and fusion power. Each has advantages and significant problems.

Solar power is the ultimate clean and renewable resource. It can be used literally as long as the sun shines upon the Earth. Like wind power it can be used in isolated areas without a great deal of infrastructure. It can significantly reduce strains on the power grid. But conditions are not favorable everywhere, as on the rainy coast of Oregon, or at all times of the year. The technology needs to be further developed. It is estimated that currently a photovoltaic cell would take between 1.8 and 3.3 years to pay for itself in the average home. While not bad, performance needs to be improved. Still, solar power clearly can make a difference, especially in the aptly named Sunbelt. From Los Angeles to Florida, many areas can meet a large portion of their power needs with solar power, especially if it is supplemented with energy efficient building construction. Impoverished areas like the Navajo Reservation could actually become net power exporters.

Hydrogen has only begun to be developed. Non-polluting, hydrogen has the best energy to weight ratio of any fuel, even gasoline. It can be used in two ways: by combining it with oxygen in a fuel cell to produce electricity, or by burning it directly. Hydrogen fuel cells are extremely reliable – NASA used them to power space probes, and hydrogen burns very cleanly.

There are drawbacks. Hydrogen, like gasoline is a manufactured fuel. It must be extracted from other gases, requiring the use of energy. Hydrogen gas is also difficult to store and transport. The smallest and simplest of molecules, hydrogen can seep out of even sealed containers very easily. Hydrogen fuel cells, while very efficient, currently require the use of platinum as a catalyst. Finally, replacing gasoline with hydrogen would require the creation of entirely new infrastructure of pipelines, storage facilities and fueling stations across the country.

Fusion has the potential to completely transform the world economy. Literally unleashing the fire within stars, fusion power offers the possibility of truly limitless power on a scale we can only begin to imagine. Unlike nuclear power plants, fusion power plants produce no harmful radioactive wastes. But fusion power remains on the drawing board. Currently fusion can only be accomplished under extremely high temperatures and with enormous expenditures of power. While controlled fusion has been achieved, no experiment has yet ‘broken even’, producing more power than it consumes.

A COUNSORTIUM:

In short, no one technology provides an immediate, perfect replacement for fossil fuels. This gives us two choices. We can go on as we have and let events take their course, surrendering all initiative. The other is to make a conscious effort to research new technologies, imperfect as they may be. Clearly, the expense involved in what is in fact the complete economic and technological restructuring of our society will be substantial. But the costs are not insurmountable. To put matters in perspective, in Fiscal Year 2006, the U.S. government allocated $290 million for fusion research. This is well less than half of what Nike spent on advertising in about the same time period. In 2005 venture capitalists put up $917 million in companies developing energy technology, less than what Estee Lauder spent on advertising that year. Still, it is only logical to try to spread the R&D costs out.

There are successful models for a concerted effort on a national scale. The Transcontinental Railroad and the Apollo Project are two examples of effective partnership between business and government. But we should go further and create an international consortium to research and develop alternative energy technologies. The Manhattan Project and the Human Genome Project show us what can be done when knowledge and expertise from different countries is combined. Let us turn the global nature of the challenge we face to our advantage. Japan, China and South Korea all would benefit by freedom from importing fossil fuels, and would bring a wealth of capital and engineering talent to the project. Israel, India, Pakistan and nations of the European Union that are now forced to import oil could also be brought into the effort. If a truly global push is made, mobilizing scientists and engineers around the world, even the most challenging technical problems can be mastered.

We have another potential source of capital for the project. Instead of fighting the oil companies and the major automakers, we can encourage them to buy into the project with tax incentives. When we built the Transcontinental Railroad the United States government gave away millions in subsidies and land grants to the railroads that undertook the task. It wasn’t pretty, and we can be more careful in controlling graft this time around, but appealing to peoples’ self interest got the job done.

THE IMPLICATIONS:

Viable alternatives to fossil fuels will eventually be found, but oil and natural gas will not go out of use overnight. Coal consumption more than doubled in the U.S. between 1960 and 2004, even as oil and natural gas were coming in. Rather, the areas that now depend on petroleum production will face falling prices and diminished profits. For a while gasoline use will likely increase in certain parts of the world as global demand drops. But clearly countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria and other places that depend on oil exports to keep their economies afloat will face significant challenges as they restructure. The leadership in the Gulf states have enough accumulated wealth to diversify, but countries like Nigeria and Indonesia with large populations to feed will be hard pressed. If we want to avoid turmoil in many formerly prosperous areas a new Marshall Plan will be needed.

The challenge of the impact of 6.6 billion humans on the world’s environment will also not go away. Historically demand for energy increases every time the supply grows. Witness the growth of Las Vegas after the Hoover Dam was built. Clean energy will only solve the most pressing problems and buy us time.

Who will the winners be? Poor nations that must currently import oil and natural gas will have surplus cash available to develop their economies. Island nations like Haiti or Sri Lanka which must currently ship in every drop of petroleum they use will benefit significantly. In many cases, nations will have winners and losers. Russia and Mexico will not be able to count on oil revenues to pull their economies along. On the other hand, isolated, impoverished areas like Chiapas will benefit greatly. There will be hidden winners. Polluted cities like Taipei, Mexico City, Seoul and Athens will become more livable. How much are respiratory problems and general ill health dragging down the economies of countries with polluted major cities?

Certainly the nations that develop clean energy sources the most quickly and effectively will benefit, just as nations which industrialized early, like Great Britain and the United States, benefited in the mid 19th century. But the true long term winners will be those nations with skilled, educated workers who can adapt to changing circumstances. If you were to go back in time to Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 and explain to him and his cabinet that in fifty years the United States would have radar, super-highways, television, and nuclear weapons and would be racing to put a satellite into outer space they would have thought you mad. We don’t know what completely new technologies will come in over the next fifty years, just that they will be found.

TOWARDS A NEW MEASUREMENT OF NATIONAL STRENGHT:

In the 15th and 16th centuries sea power made possible a new type of empire. Nations like Portugal and the Netherlands rose from relative obscurity to become major powers on the world scene. In the 19th century industrialization turned Great Britain into a new superpower and allowed nations like Germany, the United States and Japan to rise. Today the nature of power is changing again. Military and industrial might, while still important, are less important than how a nation develops its human capital - the skills and talents of its citizens.

The quest for new sources of energy, while a challenge, is achievable. New technologies will be developed. The only question is whether Americans will have the education, the skills, and the scientific mind-set to ride the coming wave of change. Just as Britain once did whatever was necessary to maintain the most powerful battle fleet in the world, in an age of growing economic competition and new challenges, Americans must do whatever is necessary to see to it that our children get the best education and job training possible. Our security and well-being require it. India and China are moving up quickly. America has less than 5% of the world’s population. If we want to remain Number 1 we have to ensure that we make the most of our talent.

In fifty years the technology will exist to build a truly wealthy society – educated, healthy, and prosperous, a society that will make our own seem as poor and as shabby as the slums of London in Charles Dicken’s day. We as a people can take the steps now to make that future happen, and ensure a continued position for our country as a major force in the world. The door to the future lies open to those with the courage and foresight to walk through it.

By: Timothy Neeno

* You can discuss this article with the author by contatcing him at his e-mail address.

---------------------------------------------

The Author of the article holds M.A. degree in U.S. history from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. For the last 2 years he taught history at the University of Phoenix. Prior to that, he lectured in numerous countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and South America. He specializes in American history and

U.S. – Asian relations.

---------------------------------------------

Bibliography:

1. CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/profileguide.html                           

2. China Daily, February 16, 2007: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/04/content_371641.htm 

3. Hutchinson, Ian H.: International Fusion Research, Technology Review.com, July 8, 2005:

http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_mit_hutch._070805.pdf 

4. LaMonica, Martin: Solar Industry Chases A Cheaper Kilowatt. March 9, 2006: http://news.com.com/Solar+industry+chases+a+cheaper+kilowatt/2100-1008_3-6047664.html 

5. 2007 New York Times Almanac 

6. Alternative Energy - Renewable Energy: http://curtrosengren.typepad.com/alternative_energy/ 

7. Alternative Energy News: http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

Related Articles:

EU's Energy Policy - July 19, 2007

Global Warming in the U.S. and EU: An 'Inconvenient Truth' or a Convenient Fiction? - June 1, 2007