Those of us who are not quite so youth-challenged as some others can still remember, only too vividly, the “oil shock” of 1973. Actually, it was the first big shock, to be followed by many other “little shocks”, but it was the one destined to stay alive in many people’s memories. The current four-dollar-plus-and-climbing price of gasoline is just the latest in a continuum of bad-to-worse energy situations. We knew in 1973 the problem would be short-lived; but today’s problem has no quick or easy solution.
Most of us feel more than a little helpless when it comes to finding solutions to world-class problems, particularly problems that have complex technical factors involved. But let me assure you that you are much more capable than you might think. In twenty-plus years with a major oil company, I observed, on several occasions, situations where the executives and the technical experts were stumped by a difficult problem until an individual who wasn’t a likely participant suggested a common-sense step toward solution.
I urge you to make a written list of your ideas or suggestions for getting ourselves out of the energy bind we are in. When you’re finished, send a copy to your U. S. Representative, or to your most trustworthy media outlet, or just file it somewhere for future reference. Remember, your ideas can be every bit as good or better than those of the high-profile people in the news. Don’t let fear of being embarrassed keep you from going through the motions; I’m willing to take that risk with eight ideas that seem reasonable to me.
My absolute certainty is that the first task to be accomplished is the compilation of a good problem definition. We have often seen the gratuitous solutions to undefined problems handed to us by the judicial branch of government, and, occasionally, by the legislative branch. We also need to keep reminding ourselves that the energy problem has multiple dimensions, and we must keep in mind that “priority” is different from “sense of urgency”.
My first specific recommendation is to quickly revise the laws and regulations governing domestic oil production, recognizing that those laws failed to anticipate and accommodate a true global economy and that many have now turned into serious barriers to solving our energy problem. “Quickly legislate” is usually considered an oxymoron; but if enough of us are engaged and stay in touch with our legislators they may acquire a sense of urgency.
Second, we need a concise, understandable assessment of the market status of the most likely fossil fuel alternatives: solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. The assessment must contain current usage information, and it must have realistic projections of the amount of energy each could be expected to supply, in what time frame, at what price. The limitations of each must also be explained. For example, many solar and wind power enthusiasts go into blank-stare mode when they are asked, “what do we do at night”?
Third, we must leverage our economic system to achieve energy goals; when our marketplace is not hamstrung by questionable regulations it provides all the incentives we need to bring more energy sources into effective use. We can expect significant political resistance (I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of our politicians propose legislation to repeal the law of gravity, in order to help the airlines).
Fourth, we need to be aware of the internecine warfare in our country between the petroleum “have” states and the petroleum “have not” states that has warped our sense of perspective. To the have-not states, the thought of all those oil royalties and oil taxes going to the handful of have states has been abhorrent (remember the “Let the bastards freeze in the dark” bumper stickers?). This attitude helped guide us to the politically safe strategy of getting oil from third parties like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela. We are now seeing similar attitudes about exploration, producing and refining from various state politicians who appear to be seeking political capital from leveraging “not in my back yard” in the name of environmental correctness.
Fifth, we must recognize and truly appreciate the unique properties of each of our energy sources: oil, coal, natural gas, tar sands, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Our goal should be to optimize energy usage by application—particularly the fossil sources. For example, we are stuck with the kerosene-like jet fuel because there is no alternate in sight for aviation; aircraft need both the energy density (because of weight concerns) as well as its liquid form (to utilize the tank space inside wings). A contrasting example is diesel-electric railroad locomotives, which could use powdered coal to run turbines to generate their electricity instead of using diesel engines. Both trucks and cars can use compressed natural gas (provided they have refueling stations available within their range of operation). There must be a number of opportunities for reducing crude oil demand in the short term, while putting oil-derived fuels to their highest and best use.
Sixth, we need national standards, or recommended (“energy star”) values, for energy conservation for a number of applications. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) for vehicles is one we’re all familiar with. But there are other fruitful areas, e.g., commercial and residential buildings’ thermal efficiency standards (it’s too late for market correction of the problem after a thermally poor house is built, sold and occupied).
Seventh, we need to bring out into the open for discussion some deep conflicts that exist, but are seldom mentioned in plain language. A number of our politicians don’t believe in the free market or in the idea of profit-making organizations. The liberals, socialists and Marxists must come out and tell us where and how much they will tolerate in the role private industry can play in making this country energy-independent. The Libertarians must tell us the extent of government cooperation with private industry they will tolerate. The environmentalists must be honest and describe succinctly the quality of life they believe is appropriate for Americans.
Eighth, long-term energy research efforts must be prioritized and adequately funded with an optimum combination of private and public money. Controlled nuclear fusion, the holy grail of energy, saw its best opportunity to move forward (with an enormously more-capable new particle accelerator project) killed by an intra-party political squabble. Nuclear fusion research, specifically, should be reexamined, as well as other long-term possibilities.
Big oil didn’t get us into this mess; at worst, it failed to hit Congress between the eyes with a two-by-four to get its attention, and then to tell our government what many of us knew was inevitable. But, like Scarlet, all of us decided to “think about that tomorrow”.
Tags: nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, wind, fossil fuels, geothermal
