ERMUSR MISC MEMO 02-12-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY The single most important human component in the preservation of the Earth's environment is energy. Industrial conversion of energy into forms that are useful for human activities is the most important aspect of technology. Abundant inexpensive energy is required for the prosperous maintenance of human life and the continued advance of life-enriching technology. People who are prosperous have the wealth required to protect and enhance their natural environment. Currently, the United States is a net importer of energy as shown in Figure 25. Americans spend about $300 billion per year for im- ported oil and gas - and an additional amount for military expenses related to those imports. s.sx I.preH N~ral Gtr / ~ ~ ux x~elar -\ ss% HyanaNetric aN OH~r \ x.37% Wl.i ui 3dar zs.7x I.prta oe ~ ss% D..e.tle ou Isporbd Ee~rp- s3e~ sili~o^ w^^^a1 co.t Figure 25: In 2006, the United States obtained 84.9% of its energy from hy- drocarbons, 8.2% from nuclear fuels, 2.9% from hydroelectric dams, 2.1% from wood, 0.8% from biofuels, 0.4% from waste, 0.3% from geothermal, and 0.3% from wind and solar radiation. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil per day - 27% from OPEC, 17% from Canada and Mexico, 16% from others, and 40% produced in the U.S. (95). The cost of imported oil and gas at $60 per barrel and $7 per 1,000 ft in 2007 is about $300 billion per year. Political calls for a reduction of U.S. hydrocarbon use by 90% (123), thereby eliminating 75% of America's energy supply, are ob- viously impractical. Nor can this 75% of U.S. energy be replaced by alternative "green" sources. Despite enormous tax subsidies over the past 30 years, green sources still provide only 0.3% of U.S. energy. Yet, the U.S. clearly cannot continue to be a large net importer of energy without losing its economic and industrial strength and its po- litical independence. It should, instead, be a net exporter of energy. There are three realistic technological paths to American energy independence -increased use of hydrocarbon energy, nuclear en- ergy, or both. There are no climatological impediments to increased use of hydrocarbons, although local environmental effects can and must be accommodated. Nuclear energy is, in fact, less expensive and more environmentally benign than hydrocarbon energy, but it too has been the victim of the politics of fear and claimed disadvan- tages and dangers that are actually negligible. For example, the "problem" of high-level "nuclear waste" has been given much attention, but this problem has been politically cre- ated by U.S. government barriers to American fuel breeding and re- processing. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into new nuclear fuel. It need not be stored in expensive repositories. Reactor accidents are also much publicized, but there has never been even one human death associated with an American nuclear re- actor incident. By contrast, American dependence on automobiles re- sults in more than 40,000 human deaths per year. All forms of energy generation, including "green" methods, entail industrial deaths in the mining, manufacture, and transport of re- sources they require. Nuclear energy requires the smallest amount of such resources (124) and therefore has the lowest risk of deaths. Estimated relative costs of electrical energy production vary with ~ is.sx coi geographical location and underlying assumptions. Figure 26 shows a recent British study, which is typical. At present, 43% of U.S. en- ergy consumption is used for electricity production. To be sure, future inventions in energy technology may alter the relative economics of nucleaz, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, and other methods of energy generation. These inventions cannot, however, be forced by political fiat, nor can they be wished into existence. Alter- natively, "conservation," if practiced so extensively as to be an alter- native to hydrocarbon and nuclear power, is merely a politically correct word for "poverty." The current untenable situation in which the United States is los- ing $300 billion per year to pay for foreign oil and gas is not the re- sult of failures of government energy production efforts. The U.S. govemment does not produce energy. Energy is produced by private industry. Why then has energy production thrived abroad while do- mestic production has stagnated? This stagnation has been caused by United States government tax- ation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. In addition, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing infe- rior energy technologies for political purposes. It is not necessary to discern in advance the best course to follow. Legislative repeal of taxation, regulation, incentives to litigation, and repeal of all subsidies of energy generation industries would stimu- late industrial development, wherein competition could then automat- ically detemvne the best paths. Nucleaz power is safer, less expensive, and more environmentally benign than hydrocarbon power, so it is probably the better choice for increased energy production. Solid, liquid and gaseous hydrocaz- bon fuels provide, however, many conveniences, and a national in- frastructure to use them is already in place. Oil from shale or coal liquefaction is less expensive than crude oil at cunent prices, but its ongoing production costs are higher than those for already developed oil fields. There is, therefore, an investment risk that crude oil prices could drop so low that liquefaction plants could not compete. Nuclear energy does not have this disadvantage, since the operating costs of nucleaz power plants are very low. Figure 27 illustrates, as an example, one practical and environ- mentally sound path to U.S. energy independence. At present 19% of U.S. electricity is produced by 104 nuclear power reactors with an average generating output in 2006 of 870 megawatts per reactor, for a total of about 90 GWe (ggawatts) (125). If this were increased by 560 GWe, nuclear power could fill all current U.S. electricity re- quirements and have 230 GWe left over for export as electricity or as hydrocarbon fuels replaced or manufactured. Thus, rather than a $300 billion trade loss, the U.S. would have a $200 billion trade surplus -and installed capacity for future U.S. re- C ~; r/~ a :. 0 U !5 Delivered Coat of Electric>tl Energy !0 rvrelar CoN Gu WIM Mkre Wled Or Selu~ Figure 26: Delivered cost per kilowatt hour of electrical energy in Great Brit- ain in 2006, without COZ controls (126). These estimates include all capital and operational expenses for a period of 50 years. Micro wind or solar are units installed for individual homes. -10- 11.f% DNntle Nat~nl GM