Page 2 of 2 US energy crunch comes home
By Michael T Klare
Coal that would burn without damaging the climate is best referred to as
climate-friendly coal, or "safe coal". At present, there are no power plants
anywhere on the planet capable of burning coal in a climate-safe manner.
Right now, there is only one technology being seriously discussed that would
burn coal safely: carbon capture and storage, or carbon sequestration. Under
this process, powdered coal is combined with steam and turned into a gas; then
the carbon is stripped away and eventually buried. This is a tricky and costly
technique that has yet to be fully tested. But at the moment, it is the only
foreseeable path to using coal in a climate-friendly way. President-elect Obama
has spoken of his interest in
this technology, but without a lot more support and investment - no small
matter in economically tough times - it will never get the boost it deserves.
Consider the alternatives
So what's left to satisfy our future energy needs? Natural gas is the next
biggest source and it possesses a number of advantages. Of all the fossil
fuels, it releases the least amount of carbon dioxide when burned. The US
possesses substantial, if not overwhelming, reserves of natural gas. But like
oil, it is a finite substance. Eventually, it, too, will peak and begin a
decline of its own. Energy experts are less certain about when exactly this is
likely to occur, but most see it coming a decade or so after oil's peak.
Our biggest problem with natural gas is that we are gradually running out of
North American reserves and so must increasingly rely on supplies from
elsewhere - in this case, in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG. Fully
45% of the world's remaining reserves are, however, held by just three
countries, Russia, Iran, and Qatar, while large amounts are also held by
Algeria, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. This
means, of course, that we face the same geopolitical problems relying on
natural gas as we do with oil.
Some say we should increase our reliance on nuclear power. Nuclear power's
attraction is that, once in operation, it does not emit carbon dioxide. It
does, however, raise enormous safety issues and produces toxic radioactive
wastes that must be stored for thousands, or even tens of thousands, of years
in ultra-safe containers - a technological challenge that has yet to be
overcome. Given these problems, the rising costs and legal problems of building
new reactors have deterred all but a few utilities from considering their
construction, putting distinct limits on nuclear power's capacity to overcome
America's energy crisis.
By far the most attractive alternative to oil and coal is obviously renewable
energy, especially wind and solar power - much praised but inadequately
supported by politicians of both parties. These need no fuel source (save the
sun and wind), are never used up, and emit no carbon dioxide. They seem the
perfect solution to the planet's energy and climate crises.
The full potential of wind and solar power, however, cannot be realized until
at least two other hurdles are overcome: the development of efficient storage
systems to collect energy when the sun and wind are strong and release it when
they are not, and the construction of an expanded nationwide electrical grid to
connect areas of reliable wind (especially the mountain states and high plains)
and sunshine (the southwest) with the areas of greatest need.
These are bound to be costly endeavors, but until they are fully funded, wind
and solar power will not be capable of replacing more than a tiny fraction of
oil and coal in the nation's overall energy mix. Unfortunately, against a
backdrop of bad times in a new era of "cheap" oil that will not last, the
likelihood of such funding at the levels needed has declined precipitously.
Much can be said about the potential of advanced biofuels (those not reliant on
food crops like corn), geothermal energy, wave power, hydrogen power, and
nuclear fusion, but these all remain in the same category as wind and solar
(only more so): they show a lot of potential, but without substantially more
research, development, and investment, they cannot help wean us from our
reliance on oil and coal.
The challenge to be met
If this assessment is accurate, Obama will face a tough, if not overwhelming,
challenge in attempting to get the nation's long-term energy crisis in hand. On
coming into office in increasingly tough times, he will be besieged by a host
of immediate crises and demands for funds. On energy, his natural inclination,
given limited financial resources, will undoubtedly be to make a series of
modest gestures toward "green energy independence". This coming crisis, the
central one of our lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren,
cannot, unfortunately, be solved via small-scale course corrections.
Needed is a major White House-led initiative on the scale of the World War II
Manhattan Project, which produced the first atomic bomb, or the Apollo Moon
project. The principal goals of such an epic undertaking would have to include:
1. Reducing oil's contribution to America's total energy supply by half over
the next quarter century. This would require a comprehensive program of
conservation, increased development of public transport, the accelerated
development of electric-powered vehicles and advanced biofuels, and other
technological innovations.
2. Gradually reducing US reliance on coal, unless consumed in a
climate-friendly manner, as well as providing government support for the
development of carbon capture and storage technology.
3. Increasing the contribution of renewable energy sources to America's total
energy mix from their current 6% to at least 25%, if not significantly more, by
2030. This would require substantial public investment in new technologies and
electrical power lines.
4. Demilitarizing America's reliance on imported petroleum. This means
repudiating the Carter Doctrine, dismantling the vast military apparatus
created since 1980 to enforce that policy, and using the resulting savings - as
much as US$150 billion per year, says a new report from the National Priorities
Project - to help finance the initiatives described above.
Only by embracing such goals can Obama hope to overcome the long-term,
potentially devastating energy crisis now facing the US.
Michael T Klare is professor of peace and world security studies at
Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers,
Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
