(This is Part 2 of a series. Go back to Part 1.)
Since 1960, human population has risen geometrically, economies have expanded enormously and humanity's energy needs have exploded. All modern economies run on fossil fuels and cannot, with the current infrastructure, run without them.
Moreover, major world economies are now of necessity importing more and more oil. In 1960 the U.S. was a net exporter; now it imports 60% of its oil needs. China, a net exporter only a few years ago, now imports 40% of its oil. India imports 70%. Japan, 99%.
Yet the peak in oil discovery occurred in 1960. And:
Less oil was discovered in the 1970s than in the 1960s. Less oil was discovered in the 1980s than in the 1970s. Less oil was discovered in the 1990s than in the 1980s. And the trend is continuing in the 2000s.
In the U.S., refineries are operating at 98% of capacity and have been doing so for some years. That has serious implications, because a system at the limits of its capacity is extremely vulnerable to "shocks".
All systems of any kind receive stressors from time to time; that is the nature of reality. If a system has extra capacity it has a much greater chance of withstanding any given stressor.
Further, a system operated at capacity deteriorates over time. As an example, the condition of U.S. oil refineries has been steadily declining because they have to be kept constantly running and thus can't easily be shut down for the deep maintenance that is increasingly needed.
Moreover, no new refineries have been built in the U.S. for 30 years. The bureaucaratic and regulatory hurdles have become almost insurmountable due to the Nimby phenomenon—build it, but "not in my backyard".
Along the same lines, the U.S. desperately needs more natural gas but has not been able to build new liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals to receive increased LNG shipments. The U.S. is a country with a vast appetite for energy but a strong public dislike for the infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain it.
The result is that the U.S. will spend $300 billion more for energy this year than last due to the rising prices of fossil fuel and the need to import larger amounts of it.
And the United States still has no serious energy policy. The recent U.S. energy bill contains no real plan, no real management function to help coordinate efforts in various areas. It's basically just a big giveaway of money, mostly to companies that are already awash in profits due to high and rising fossil fuel prices.
And an energy bill that just about completely ignores the issue of overall vehicle gas mileage cannot be considered serious, because conservation is the most effective method available to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. The reason for this is that it's a lot cheaper to save fossil fuel than to buy it.
Worldwide, the same is true. In a world where the margin between production and consumption of oil is only 1%, where the average oil field is 35 years old and where new discoveries have been relentlessly declining, it's only a matter of time before "peak oil" is reached and worldwide production begins to decrease.
A tremendous amount of progress could be made in the area of conservation and efficiency, but a curious belief
is impeding many efforts—the belief that conservation necessarily implies a reduction in economic activity.
Actually, just the opposite is the case. For instance, British Petroleum has reduced its carbon emissions 10% below 1990 levels, thereby saving itself $650 million in energy bills over the next 10 years. DuPont has reduced energy use 7% while boosing production 30%. Savvy companies are starting to realize that increased energy efficiency greatly contributes to increased profitability.
Almost everything could be made much more efficient. For instance, studies conducted by PG&E have concluded that houses could be made using greater, more efficient insulation that would need no heating even in sub-zero temperatures and no air conditioning in summer, while costing no more than a regular house. Plus the long-term savings in heating oil and electricity would be dramatic.
Currently, only 13% of the energy burned by the average vehicle actually reaches the wheels. A huge immediate saving, as pointed out by energy expert Amory Lovins, would be to halve the weight of the car by using carbon-fiber composites instead of metal.
This would immediately double the fuel economy of the vehicle. If combined with hybrid technology, vehicles getting over 100 mpg could be manufactured. And recent advances in manufacturing techniques have made carbon composites cost-competitive with steel. It only requires boldness and vision to begin producing such vehicles— the technology already exists.
But wouldn't such a lighter car be less safe in a crash? No, such a vehicle would be safer because carbon-composite materials can absorb 6 to 12 times as much crash energy per ounce as steel.
Factories, homes, buildings, vehicles, appliances and electronic equipment could all be made dramatically more effficient and actually put more money into the economy by drastically saving on sky-high energy bills.
And this is not to mention the advantages conferred by renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, which I've discussed extensively elsewhere. Particularly advantageous would be to combine solar and wind energy generators, because days that are poor for wind—sunny, calm days—are especially good for solar.
What's needed is a U.S. and global "Apollo project" for energy. Just as America focused its talents and capital to accomplish the seemingly miraculous feat of putting a man on the moon in a decade, a similarly focused effort is needed. It's estimated that with a focused effort a carbon-free economy could be achieved within a few decades.
Such an effort would be a real beacon for the world. It would not only be the equivalent of a huge tax cut for global economies, but would do so without increasing deficits. If such an effort is not undertaken by humanity,
the alternative will be an "energy tsunami" that is more predictable with each passing day.
(This is the end of Part 2. Go to Part 3.)
—jim sloman, 9.4.05
|
