Continued Energy Woes or a Secure Energy
Future?
By Peter Schwartzman and Tim Montague
Literally everything we do requires
energy. Even sitting still requires energy because our heart still pumps blood,
and our internal thermometer must work to maintain a constant, livable
temperature. Internal human processes aside, our species has learned to use
energy for external activities on a grand scale. The technological age has
brought us a slew of gadgets to improve our lives – televisions,
refrigerators, cell phones, automobiles, lawn mowers, and more. Given the
extent to which energy consuming machines dot our landscape, itÕs no surprise
to find that human energy use increased considerably during the 20th
century. During the last century, total global energy use went up 12 times and
per capita energy use went up nearly 4-fold. As poorer countries like India and
China continue to industrialize, this trend will continue.
Prior to the
19th century, humans relied on renewable resources (wood, whale oil,
crops, etc.) to produce materials for commerce, transportation, and food. Today
we rely heavily on non-renewable energy forms like oil, coal, and nuclear
power. In the Midwest we currently meet 95% of our electricity needs with coal
and nuclear power. Similarly, oil provides the vast majority of our
transportation fuel—70% of which we import from overseas. Unfortunately,
the social, political and economic costs of our dependence on oil, coal and
nuclear are quickly adding up.
As we begin a
new century, the questions become: ÒIs there a better way to maintain our
standard of living?Ó, and ÒWhat energy alternatives do we have that maximize
the benefits and minimize harm to human health and the planet?Ó ItÕs ironic
that the lifeblood of our economy and high standard of living are also the
source of our deepest national health, environment and security challenges. You
donÕt have to be an American soldier in Iraq to know that something is
seriously wrong with our national energy policy.
Air pollution
from fossil fuels is a serious problem for human health and increasingly the
health of the planet. Pollution from fossil fuels kills 30 to 60 thousand
people in the U.S. each year. ThatÕs the death toll from a Vietnam-sized war
each year. Global warming, the other major side effect caused by burning fossil
fuels is jeopardizing entire regions—like the Gulf Coast—with
flooding. And then there is nuclear power. We donÕt know what to do with the
radioactive waste. ItÕs just piling up by the train car-load as we debate where
and how to bury it. Worse yet,
nuclear power requires weapons-grade plutonium that can be used by terrorists
or rogue governments to wreak havoc on their enemy of choice.
Here in
Illinois our 25 coal-fired power plants are chugging tons of soot, smog and
mercury into the air 365 days a year. This pollution causes 1,356 excess
deaths, 2,361 heart attacks and 33,986 asthma attacks each year according to
the Environmental Protection Agency. This translates into millions of dollars
of lost worker productivity, healthcare expenses and missed days of school. As
a nation we are now spending 15% of our Gross Domestic Product taking care of
sick people—money that could be better spent creating living-wage jobs
and high-quality education for our youth.
The
environmental and health-related costs of coal-mining (and uranium mining for
nuclear power) are tremendous. Miners are exposed to many occupational hazards,
not the least of which is breathing coal or uranium dust. IllinoisÕ coal
reserves are larger than those of any state east of the Mississippi River and
the third largest in the country, behind only Montana and Wyoming (ISGS). But
mining the coal tears up thousands of acres of land that would otherwise have
been green space or productive farmland. The resulting erosion and loss of
wildlife habitat are a major detriment to the local residentsÕ quality of life
(Howard).
Global
warmingÕs clear signal
Thanks to
hurricane Katrina—and its landmark $200 billion cleanup costs—and
regular coverage by Time,
Newsweek, and the New
York Times, global
warming has become a household expression. NASA scientists believe that weÕve
reached a global tipping point beyond which it will be very difficult to
reverse course. As the planet warms there is less snow and ice to reflect back
the heat of the Sun and so the warming trend will grow stronger. They warn that
if we donÕt drastically reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions,
temperatures will rise by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. That translates
into an uncertain future of droughts, storms, floods, and pestilence (owing to
the emergence of new zones of habitability for disease-carrying organisms).
Al GoreÕs ÒAn
Inconvenient TruthÓ makes it plain to see that our oil-and-coal-rich lifestyle
is melting ice caps, creating stronger hurricanes, and raising sea levels. The
dangers are clear and present. Hurricane Katrina displaced over 1 million
people in Louisiana alone. The truth is: global warming has already begun to
transform life on Earth as we know it. A year after Katrina, New Orleans has
returned to less than half of its original population. And there are 35 million
Americans living in the hurricane-prone coastal region of the U.S. from the
Carolinas to Texas—sitting ducks for the next big one.
The dark side
of nuclear power
Safety reviews
conducted this past March revealed that radioactive water from Braidwood and
other Illinois nuclear power plants had leaked into local groundwater supplies.
The attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against Exelon Corporation because of six such leaks,
demanding that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents. Home
to eleven nuclear power plants (the most of any state in the country), Illinois
currently generates more than half if its electricity from nuclear power. The Chicago region gets as much as 80%
of its juice from nuclear power.
Once promised
to produce electricity Òtoo cheap to meter,Ó nuclear power has not lived up to
its expectations. Proponents argue that nuclear is THE answer to global warming
and weaning the U.S. off of foreign oil. But there is a simple reason no
nuclear power plants have been built in the last twenty five years in the
U.S.—they arenÕt economical. And they are so dangerous that no insurance
company will underwrite them, forcing Uncle Sam to manage that unwanted
liability (as stipulated in the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity
Act). Nuclear power plants are hugely complicated, expensive machines that
produce radioactive waste which has to be securely stored for thousands of
years. Now we have a fleet of aging nuclear power plants (and heaps of
radioactive waste) approaching the end of their useful life and industry is
lobbying hard to build a next generation—but only with billions in
federal subsidies paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Nuclear power
plants pose a number of threats. The power plants can melt down spewing
radioactive dust into the air. Chernobyl-style events can occur through human
error or terrorist attacks. From cradle to grave, the fuels used in nuclear
power plants are extremely dangerous, difficult to contain, and so long-lived
that humans really donÕt know how to grapple with the waste problem.
The most
serious weakness of nuclear power is the weapons-grade plutonium that is made
to fuel nuclear reactors. Where there is plutonium, there will be nuclear
weapons. Be it Pakistan, India, Israel, and soon Iran, the path for acquiring
nuclear weapons capability is clear. And of course that technology will spread
to the highest bidder on the world market and itÕs not a matter of if, but
when, a U.S. city (or another major urban center in the world) is the target of
a terrorist attack with a nuclear bomb that will make 9/11 look like childÕs
play.
Oil and war
Americans
love their automobiles and so long as the gasoline flows cheaply, we donÕt seem
to have a problem. But the true costs of importing 70 percent of our
oil—much of that from the Middle East—are much greater than the
price we pay at the pump. Our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a
thinly veiled part of a bigger long term presence designed to secure access to
oil imports. So long as we need large quantities of oil, we will be entangled
in that region. We have to ask ourselves, is the $310 billion (and counting)
investment in Iraq worth it just to keep the ÒcheapÓ oil flowing? Imagine what
we could do with all that money right here at home.
IsnÕt it time
to ask whether a better way is possible? Do we accept these problems as
necessary costs for all the ÒfruitsÓ that have come with modern
industrialization? Must we be so cynical, so unimaginative? What kind of
society do we want to live in anyhow?
Current
discussions around what energy source we should use focus almost entirely on a
limited definition of cost. For instance, coal and nuclear are often touted as
lower cost solutions than renewable sources like wind or solar. There is the
purely dollars and cents cost that the consumer pays. But there are many
factors including environmental damage, negative impacts on human health, and
taxpayer subsidies that are often overlooked. So the current, seemingly fair
and objective, comparison of energy sources on the basis of ÒcostÓ is contrived
and virtually meaningless. Yet, the beat goes on, and on, and on.
But, the beat
stops here. There are social and ethical considerations. Even if a ÒtrueÓ cost
could be calculated, there are many important factors that need investigation:
(1) Is the resource available in sufficient quantities now and in the future?;
(2) Does the energy source support democratic principles and improve chances
for a peaceful world?; (3) Is the source climate neutral?; and, (4) Is the
technology safe and does it promote national security? These concerns cut to
the heart of the matter. LetÕs
address them briefly.
Given that
global energy consumption is now only 0.01% of what the sun delivers to Earth,
there is no question about sufficient quantities. Even with anticipated growth
in energy consumption this century, we have a long way to go before we approach
natural limits—interestingly, the same cannot be said for water, soil, or
clean air resources which are currently being exploited beyond their renewal
capacity. If you consider that fossil fuels are just the sunÕs energy from many
millions of years ago, our current energy program can be thought of as
ÒancientÓ or ÒantiquatedÓ and certainly not ÒmodernÓ or Òcontemporary.Ó
Regarding
democracy and peace, energy sources that are more equitably
distributed—unlike oil, coal and nuclear fuels which are concentrated in
a few countries–will reduce friction in international politics. Solar,
wind and geothermal energy sources are much more equally distributed, promoting
local self-reliance and decision-making. As for the Òglobal warmingÓ
implications of energy resources, renewable energy sources are much less
impacting in this respect. Given the gravity of impending climate change (on
all life forms), this factor will be ignored at our collective peril.
Lastly,
regarding safety, as recent blackouts have suggested, modern ÔcentralizedÕ
energy distribution networks are not reliable. Networks of large coal, natural
gas and nuclear power plants are inherently vulnerable to natural and manmade
(terrorist) disasters. Renewable energy sources decentralize production much
more readily and, therefore, are inherently safer.
Clean,
renewable energy
Just a few
weeks ago 64 local mayors, scientists and civic leaders from the Chicago area
sent a letter to Springfield demanding the IL Legislature take proactive steps
to address global warming. The letter calls for meeting 20% of our energy needs
in Illinois with renewable sources by 2020. To some this might sound like a big
step, but leading energy researchers conclude that the U.S. could achieve a
100% renewable energy economy by 2020—itÕs simply a matter of priorities.
The country of Sweden has taken a bold step in that direction pledging to be
oil-free by 2020.
Renewable
energy sources include wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, geothermal and wave
energy. Wind energy is the fastest growing source of electricity in the world
today. ItÕs growing faster than coal, nuclear and natural gas with an annual
growth rate of 34%. Machines that harness the windÕs energy have been in use
since Roman times (~200 B.C.). The first windmill for electricity production
was installed in Denmark in 1890; itÕs no accident that Europe is the world
leader in wind power. Denmark leads the world making 23% of electricity from
wind, followed by Spain at 8% and Germany at 4%. Here in the U.S. we now
generate just 0.5% of our electricity with wind. But there is hope—we
have only scratched the surface of windÕs huge potential in America.
If we
harnessed just 10% of the wind potential of the ten windiest American cities we
could reduce total U.S. carbon emissions by a third. A Department of Energy
study concluded that we could meet all our electricity needs if we harnessed
the wind resources of just three states—North Dakota, Texas and Kansas.
In 2005, wind energy became cheaper than natural gas-fired power (even using a
contrived determination of ÒcostÓ) setting off a wind-energy buying bonanza.
Wind-turbine production is now sold-out through 2008 in the U.S.—weÕre
talking about a $7.5 billion dollar industry by 2010.
Wind energy
is abundant, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and mitigates global
warming. Meanwhile, current tax code provides that non-renewable energy sources
receive 96% of all tax subsidies. Federal subsidies for all renewable energy
over the last fifty years are about $8 billion (or $160 million/year). Compare
this to $142 billion for nuclear or the tens of billions per year that the coal
and oil industry receive in federal subsidies. Clearly the playing field is
uneven.
Solar –
pure light
The amount of
solar energy striking the surface of the earth is enormous. More energy strikes
the earth in ONE HOUR than all of humanity consumes in a year. Even taking into
account seasonal and geographic variation, putting solar cells on our rooftops
makes perfect sense. The Energy Foundation (www.ef.org) estimates that we could
generate half of all our electricity needs just by putting solar cells on all
existing rooftops in America.
We can
convert sunlight directly to electricity with Òsolar cells,Ó also called
Òphotovoltaic cellsÓ or PV for short. Production of photovoltaics is up 25% in
the past decade and up 45% in 2005; most are made in Japan (Kammen). We can
also convert sunlight to heat energy by heating water (or some other
heat-trapping liquid), making steam, and then using that steam to make
electricity. This so-called Òsolar-thermalÓ technology can be as simple as
running water through an array of pipes painted black which warms the water.
The bottom line is you can generate large quantities of electricity and heat
for a variety of household or commercial uses.
The only
technical challenge with wind and solar is energy storage—we have to
efficiently store the energy captured from wind and solar because neither
source is available 24/7. You can store electricity from wind farms or solar
cells by pumping water or compressed air into tanks for later release (the
stored water or air drives a generator to make electricity). Or you can store
the energy as hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be used to power electric
fuel-cell vehicles. This process is entirely clean and climate neutral—water
is the only byproduct. Fuel-cell vehicles are already entering the commercial
marketplace and with proper R&D investment there is a bright future for
clean-air highways.
Corn Oil
& Biofuels?
Biomass
energy—making fuel or electricity from crops—is now getting a lot
of attention here in the Corn Belt. Your neighbor could be filling up her tank
with biodiesel made from recycled french fry grease or ethanol made from corn
or soybeans. But, even if we dedicated all current U.S. corn and soybean production
to biofuels, we would only be able to meet 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of
diesel demandÓ (Choi). This is probably isnÕt the best use of corn and soy
given the importance of these crops to our food supply.
Biomass
doesnÕt solve our environmental woes the way wind and solar do and should be
seen as a transitional technology. When you consider the fossil fuels (to run
tractors), and the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow soy and corn,
converting crops to fuel is less than climate neutral and far from
environmentally benign. Low-till or no-till crops like switchgrass (a native
prairie grass) are probably a better long term solution than soy or corn. Done
right, biomass can be a part, albeit small, of our renewable energy strategy.
Geothermal—using
the heat energy in the earth to heat or cool buildings or produce
electricity—is also a highly distributed and renewable resource. For
small and medium-scale applications like keeping your house or office building
warm in the winter or cool in summer—geothermal is a great renewable
energy source.
Efficiency and Conservation
No future
energy policy can overlook the huge amounts of energy that goes to waste in our
society. On average, our buildings are far too leaky, our electronics far too
numerous and gluttonous, and our transportation options too few and
ill-conceived. A perfect example of the absurdity of the way we waste energy is
the fact that ~5% of all household energy in the United States is used to run
televisions, computers, and similar appliances when then are off (Lovins)!
There are far
better ways to build our homes and machines and far smarter and more
responsible ways to transport ourselves. In Ludwigshafen, Germany, 500 homes
were retrofitted with known technologies and energy demands were reduced by 83%
(Jochem). There is nothing shocking about this. It just requires thought and
execution. Small changes in consumer choices can also have an astounding
impact. Modern refrigerators use only one-fourth of the energy they did
30-years ago and tremendous amounts of pollution has been avoided. But further
reductions are still possible (especially with home electronics where
efficiency is currently not a line item).
The expansion of subway lines and bikeways, and a shift away from SUVs
to LEVs (low-emission vehicles) can be extremely beneficial to our energy woes
as well as our air quality. Changes in household efficiency will save a great
deal of energy (and at less cost than coal (Lovins)) and modifications to
existing transportation options should also make a huge dent as well.
J-O-B-S
One of the
most effective ways members of the powerful energy conglomerate (and their
minions) convince the citizens that renewable forms of energy wonÕt work on the
large scale is by floating and reaffirming the myth that too many jobs will be
lost if we move away from fossil fuel-based economies. Unfortunately, as in
other proclamations they make, these allegations are unfounded and, in fact,
when one analyzes what will happen when we do make this move (and it will
happen soon, smoothly or with them kicking and screaming), it is found that
actually renewable energies demand a greater workforce and one that will be
compensated well. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, renewable
energy and energy efficiency delivered on a grand scale has the potential to
Òcreate 1.3 million jobs in this country by 2020Ó (RMI). A study published last
year by IL-PIRG shows that a program to move IL to 20% renewable by 2020 would
result in a net increase of jobs by 4,600-7,600 a year (and save consumers $794
million on natural gas bills by the end date!) (Redirecting). These studies and
others suggest that we should be ultra-careful not to fall victim to the
Òloss-of-jobsÓ myth perpetuated by industry.
With all this
potential for changing to safe, reliable, peaceful and clean energy, and
reducing waste while increasing jobs, it boggles the mind why we arenÕt half
way there yet. Unfortunately, human greed (of a few) and the collective
ignorance (of the many) is a big reason why.
Today, most
energy resources are largely monopolized by a few extremely wealthy companies.
Oil is probably the best example of this—Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Shell
control the lionÕs share of the worldÕs oil. The combined profits of these
three companies total more than $80 billion per year. ThatÕs an $80 billion
disincentive to promote and develop renewable alternatives. There is
substantial evidence that major energy companies have stifled entrepreneurial
efforts to develop and distribute renewable energy by buying out smaller
innovators in the field.
Big oilÕs
influence in politics, too, is plain to see. It is no surprise that three key
members of the current administration are connected to the oil industry –
President George Bush (Arbusto), Vice President Dick Chaney (Halliburton, the
largest oil-services company), and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
(Chevron). It is well-known that Republican candidates received 80% of the
campaign contributions (nearly $26 million) made by the energy industry leading
up to the 2004 election (Blackout). Is there any doubt why most of our
politicians are ineffective at tackling the health, environmental and security
issues so closely tied to coal, nuclear and oil?
The sheer
volume of renewable energy availability means that it will not be
ignored—we could meet current global energy demands 17 times over using
clean energy alternatives. But the public needs to say ÒNoÓ to more government
subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear industries. And we must support R&D
investment in cleaner, safer technologies like wind and solar—a real
investment (unlike military spending) in national security.
Consumers
could demand clean energy alternatives and force the energy industry to move
much faster on renewable energy initiatives. But letÕs face it. Until consumers
really understand that there are viable alternatives to coal, oil and nuclear,
little change is likely. A better informed public means better public education
that includes energy issues in the schools and in the media. We need to take
back the airwaves—a vibrant and independent (not corporate dominated)
media is critical to open democratic debate about the energy issues and
alternative choices we face. And we need real campaign finance reform to insure
that law-makers can invest the necessary federal dollars in renewable,
sustainable, peaceful, and clean energy programs. These steps wonÕt happen
without persistent, organized action by caring, and creative residents. A
different future is possible, and it is time that we all pitched in to make it
bright.
Sources
Apollo Alliance. http://www.appolloaalliance.org/
Blackout. (2005) PBS Frontline.
Choi, C.Q. (2006) ÒBiodiesel is Better.Ó Scientific American, 295(3), Sept, 38.
Clear the Air. (2006) ÒIllinoisÕ Dirty Power Plants.Ó http://cta.policy.net/regional/il/
Howard, C. (2006) ÒDamage Control.Ó Peoria Journal Star, April 23.
International Energy Agency. http://www.iea.org/
(IL-PIRG) Illinois Public Interest Research Group.
http://www.illinoispirg.org/
(ISGS) Illinois State Geological Survey. (2006)
ÒCoal—IllinoisÕ Black Treasure.Ó http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/
Jochem, E.K. (2006) ÒAn Efficient Solution.Ó Scientific
American, 295(3), Sept,
64-67.
Kammen, D.M. (2006) ÒThe Rise of Renewable Energy.Ó Scientific
American, 295(3), Sept,
84- 93.
Lovins, A.B. (2005) ÒMore Profit With Less Carbon.Ó Scientific
American, Sept, 74-83.
Redirecting IllinoisÕs Energy: The Economic and Consumer
Benefits of Clean Energy Policies. (2005) IL
PIRG Education Fund, 24 pp.
Renewable Energy: Capable of Meeting Our Energy Needs. (2006) Public Citizen, 4 pp.
Repowering the Midwest: The Clean Energy Development Plan for
the Heartland. (2001)
Environmental Law & Policy Center et al., 139 pp.
(RMI) Rocky Mountain Institute.
http://www.rmi.org/
(UCS) Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is
associate professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox
College. He is a climatologist with publications in the area of climate change
and human population growth. An avid Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder
and maintainer of websites dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onespower.org),
natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org),
and clean air and energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).
Tim Montague (email: tim@rachel.org) is the associate
director of Environmental Research Foundation in Chicago, IL (www.rachel.org). He is an activist
and ecologist working on creating a more democratic, sustainable society.