5/2008

Rev 6/10

PLAIN SPEAKING ABOUT AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE

Eric B. Forsyth

**Introduction.**

Within a few decades two problems of global proportions threaten the way
of life as we now know it in the United States. They are:

1.  Global depletion of fossil fuel

2.  Global Climate Change.

They are closely related; most scientists agree that the release of
carbon into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuel in the past
century has contributed in some degree to the present warming trend.
What is more contentious is how much change will be produced in the
future by burning the remaining reserves of fossil fuel, the true extent
of which no one really knows. It has to be assumed that eventually all
fossil fuel left on the planet will be consumed and the trapped
molecular carbon released. If that is the case our only strategy is to
control the rate of consumption or capture the carbon in some way. Many
experts believe that global oil production has peaked, this means that
supply cannot be significantly increased to meet increased demand from
populous developing countries such as China and India. At present the US
is the largest consumer of oil, thus increased competition for the
remaining reserves will have a severe impact on this country. A strategy
the US could adopt which would simultaneously address both these crises
is to develop alternative energy sources which do not depend on fossil
fuel This is an immense problem; the infrastructure that provides our
energy needs from transportation fuels to electricity is enormously
complex and cost uncountable billions over many decades, as will an
alternative.

Conservation is an important element on the road to alternative energy
sources. By developing energy efficient technologies we reduce the load
that will eventually be supplied by alternative sources. It has been
suggested that conservation will extend the life of the reserves and
thus provide more time for the development of alternative technologies.
This may not be true; conservation in the US will probably be offset on
a world-wide basis by increased demand from other countries. But
conservation could reduce imports, although to be strictly logical and
ignoring economic and diplomatic implications, it may be preferable to
consume oil and gas from other countries and conserve domestic reserves.
In recent years hybrid cars have made some penetration into the
automobile market. This is a good example of conservation; a more
efficient machine to do the same task. Other technologies have also
appeared such as cars powered by fuel cells using hydrogen and
all-electric cars using batteries. Whether or not they conserve fossil
fuel depends on where the hydrogen or electricity for charging comes
from. Using ethanol as a fuel is discussed below. Conservation only
saves energy, certainly a good thing, but it does not provide an
alternative for our present life style.

**Alternative forms of energy.**

Two properties of the major fossil fuels; oil, natural gas and coal,
will make it very difficult to find 'plug-in' substitutes. These are:

1.  They are transportable and pack high energy content per unit volume.

2.  The energy is inherent; it was generated by Mother Nature millions
    of years ago and stored until Man exploited it.

A significant fraction of the fossil fuel consumed in the US, about a
third, is converted to electricity. Our society has become completely
dependent on the reliable, stable delivery of electric power. Several
proposed alternative sources of energy would also generate electricity,
to be a viable alternative the electric power generated this way must
meet the same quality standards as the present system. A limiting factor
is imposed by the nature of the electricity network; at any moment the
power generated and the power consumed are matched, there is no storage
of electricity. A small cushion for transient power fluctuations is
provided by the spinning momentum of the generators. In the future,
increased use may be made of electric power to displace fossil fuel in
such applications as space heating, rail transportation and even
all-electric automobiles. If this occurs, besides many more generating
plants, the transmission and distribution networks must be greatly
expanded, including a national transmission grid.

**Renewable Energy.**

At present by far the most important renewable energy resource is
hydro-electricity. Most of the power generated this way comes from
massive dams such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville
Power Authority in the west. Unfortunately most of the suitable sites in
the US have already been developed and further expansion would be
difficult. There may be opportunity to develop 'low-head' hydro, but on
the scale power is needed this would be a small contribution. The large
hydro installations in the US have an attribute that is not provided by
many other proposed renewable sources; the power is available
continuously, day and night, rain or shine. Only a long period of severe
drought can compromise operations.

In the past decade or so, two renewable but intermittent sources of
energy have been widely promoted; wind turbines and photovoltaic
generators. Both provide electric power, but because the basic source of
energy, wind and sunlight, are not fully under control of the operators
the power does not meet the quality standards of the present system. In
effect they can only be used if connected to a large grid so that the
intermittent characteristic can be backed up by power drawn from other,
fossil fuel fired, nuclear or hydro, generators. There are also
stability problems associated with connecting myriad, widely dispersed
relatively small generators to a network if their total power begins to
approach the network capacity. Many of these drawbacks also apply to
other ideas under review such as tidal and wave generators and solar
steam boilers, even designs with limited (diurnal) energy storage. These
constraints mean that such sources must be regarded as a form of
conservation, possibly quite useful and able to make a contribution, but
not a genuine alternative.

Another renewable source which has been heavily subsidized to bring it
to market is biomass. Of course, in centuries past, wood was mankind's
most common source of heating, but the goal of modern biomass production
is to replace fossil fuel with ethanol, obtained by fermentation or with
oil from plants. In Brazil a national effort has resulted in significant
displacement of gasoline for autos using sugar cane as the feedstock.
The US, much further north with less solar radiation, has embarked on a
similar program using corn as the feedstock with less success. The
energy available from the final product is not much different than the
energy invested in its production. On the downside is the loss of
agricultural land for food production and the water needed for
irrigation.

**Non-fossil Primary Energy Sources**.

**'**Primary' means the power is available on a continuous basis and can
be closely controlled. In a few areas of the US the hot magma of the
earth's core is close enough to the surface to provide steam for
turbines. In Iceland most of the energy consumed by the relatively small
population is derived from this source, the opportunity to exploit sites
in the US on the scale needed for significant contribution to national
energy needs is much more limited. Apart from hydro, referred to
earlier, the largest provider of non-fossil energy is fission of
uranium. Nuclear power plants have been operating very successfully in
the US for more than thirty years. Some, in fact, are reaching the end
of their design life. Just as fossil energy represents the power
produced by the sun millions of years ago, fission energy originated in
the heart of stars billions of years ago. Current reactor designs,
called 'thermal' reactors, are not very efficient at extracting the
energy in the nucleus; when the fuel becomes unusable more than 99% of
the possible energy is still locked in the waste. Therein lies the
problem; safe disposal of such radioactive waste is difficult and highly
contentious. The reserves of economically available uranium for thermal
reactors will probably not significantly outlast fossil fuel reserves. A
few trial reactors have been constructed throughout the world that
mitigate these problems. Known as breeders they use a different fission
mode than thermal reactors. Much more of the available energy in the
uranium nucleus is extracted and waste volume is greatly reduced because
they could burn the residual waste of thermal reactors. Possibly the
waste will not need to be safely secreted for millennia because it will
be much less radioactive, but more development is needed. Uranium
reserves to operate breeders would last for centuries. Finally we turn
to fusion reactors, which would fuse hydrogen nuclei into helium and
release energy in the process. Despite decades of research a continuous
fusion reaction has not yet been achieved. Even if this finally occurs
on an experimental basis the design of a power plant would require
significant development. This source of primary energy is many years
away from practical realization, but may represent hope for future
generations.

**A National Strategy.**

It is impossible to predict the future, but a strategy can be formulated
based on events which are highly likely to occur. It is very likely that
oil and natural gas production will not rise significantly in the future
and increased demand for these products will force up the cost.
Eventually demand will seriously outstrip production and unless
alternative energy sources and infrastructure are in place by then there
will be major disruptions of our way of life. This scenario will not
occur overnight, but construction of alternative energy sources using
existing technology must start immediately, these can then be phased in
as oil and gas reserves fade away. We have not mentioned coal, which
could provide electric power for over a century, albeit with high carbon
emission, and might well represent the final gasp of fossil fuel energy
production for our grandchildren. There is some irony in this as coal
kicked off the industrial revolution and started mankind on the
profligate use of energy.

Before listing the technical options which must be pursued there are two
issues which have to be resolved and are outside the scope of this
position paper:

1.  The ordering of national priorities. Even the US has a finite
    budget. A balance must be achieved to use our financial,
    intellectual and material resources to preserve national defense,
    start the construction of alternative energy sources and greatly
    expand R&D in this field. At the same time our commitment to
    existing social services such as medical care, social security and
    welfare must be maintained.

2.  Plan and implement a National Alternative Energy Program. This
    organization must coordinate private and public spending on a huge
    scale; it must have plenipotentiary authority not seen since WWII.
    Individuals and corporations are motivated by self interest; the
    organization must ensure private self interest is not in conflict
    with the national goal, that is, the lobbyists must be kept at bay.
    A realistic assessment of remaining fossil fuel reserves must be
    prepared in conjunction with a plan for timely introduction of
    alternative sources.

A Plan of Immediate Action:

• Embark on a massive public education program so that citizens can
understand the need for drastic measures.

• Promote all measures possible to foster conservation, for example,
higher automobile gas mileage limits, expanded public transportation,
electrification of railroads and electrification of space heating.

• Massively expand the electric power system using nuclear reactors.
Build a national electrical transmission grid, as the system grows it
will be able to accept more power from renewable sources.

• Start the immediate development on an urgent basis of thermal
reactors, breeder reactors, and reprocessing plants combined at a single
site to serve as a demonstration for the future path.

• Re-evaluate the ethanol program, and investigate the use of more
productive feedstocks.

• Develop new hydroelectric sites, possibly in cooperation with Canada.

• Increase funding for energy R&D, for example breeder reactors, fusion
power plants, hydrogen production from renewable sources, electric
automobiles, improved photovoltaic panels, extending the storage time of
solar thermal, etc.

• Develop cost effective methods of CO~2~ sequestration so that coal can
continue to be used for power production without serious environmental
impact. Set carbon limits for both the national use of coal and its use
if exported.

**Final Thoughts.**

The era of cheap energy is ending. It brought the population of the USA,
and many other countries, a standard of living never before seen in
history. With clear thinking, a national will, and lots of money we can
overcome our addiction for fossil fuel and build a society that will
maintain the way of life we have come to regard as normal. If we don't,
our children will look back on the last hundred years as a golden age.
America has some of the finest scientists and engineers in the world,
with courageous leadership there is no reason why we cannot meet this
challenge.