ED 193 101

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONEPONS AGESCY

PUB DATENOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

DO(IJNENT REMO

SO 012 723

Newman, Dorothy K.: And OthersEnergy and the way We Live. Article Booklet for theTwelfth Course by Newspaper.California Univ., San Liego. Univ. Extension.National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH),Washington, D.C.: Naticnal Science Foundation,Washington, D.C.BO51p.: For related documents, see SO 012 722 and SO012 724.Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, 3627 SacramentoStreet, San Francisco, CA 94118 ($2.95, qualitydiscounts aveilablel

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS Adult Education: *Energy: Energy Conservation:

*Environmental Educaticn: Higher Education:*Newspapers: Nuclear Energy: Postseccndary Education:Resource Materials: Social Studies: Solar Radiation:United States History: World Problems

IDENTIFIERS Courses by Newspaper: *Energy Consumption: EnergyCrisis

ABSTRACTThe 15 articles in this booklet were written for the

twelfth Course by Newspaper, "Energy and the Way We Live." Courses byNewspaper is a program presenting college-level courses to the publicthrough the ccoperation of newspapers and participating colleges.Other components of this course are the Reader/Study Guide (SO 0127241 and the Source Book (SO 012 722). The 1250word articles,written by experts in the field and published in newspapers beginningin January 1980, focus on the nature and dimensions of our currentenergy dilemma, place it in historical perspective, and consider itsimplicaticns for our way of life as individuals and as a nation. Theyalso examine the potentials and limitaticns of alternative energysources as well as moral, social, political, and economic issuesinvolved in cur energy choices. Specific topics are our energeticlifestyle, the nature of the energy' crisis, ways energy was generatedin the past, 19th and 20th century developments, waste, use of energyin other countries, international politics relating to energy, energyand the third world, conventicnal fuels in transition, nuclear andsclar energy, synthetic fuels, effective energy use, and futurechoices and trade-offs. Authors include Dorothy K. Newman, S. DavidFreeman, Lynn White, Jr., John G. Burke, Daniel Bell, Norman Metzger,Joel Darmstadter, John K. Cooley, Kenneth E. Boulding, Eon E. Kash,and others. (CK)

************************************************************************ Reprcductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *********.**************************************************************

Article Bookletfor the

Twelfth Course by Newspaper

Energy and theWay We Live

Dorothy K. Newman

S. David Freeman

M Lynn White, jr.

John G. BurkeJ-

Daniel Bellri

Norman Metzger

Joel Darmstadter

` John K. CooleyV)

U S DEPARTMENT°, NEALTN.tOucATIONavitLFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

tOUcATiON

DNS DOCUMENT /LAS BEEN REPRO.OUCED EXAcTL T AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR DIMANIZAT ION ORIGIN.*TING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFF mom. NATIONAL INSTITUTE

OREDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

**PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL. RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Kenneth E. Boulding

Don E. Kash

Alvin M. Weinberg

Wilson Clark

John H. Gibbons

William Upton Chandler

Denis Hayes

Melvin Kranzberg

Courses by Newspaper is a project ofUniversity Extension, University of California, San Diego

Funded by the National Endowment for the Humanitieswith supplemental funding for this course from the National Science Foundation

Distributed by United Press International

Boyd & Fraser Publishing CompanySan Francisco

14

2

Courses by NewspaperEnergy and the Way We Live

Academic Coordinator

Melvin KranzbergCallaway Professor of theHistory of TechnologyGeorgia Institute of Technology

Editorial Director

Jane L. SeheiberUniversity of California, San Diego

Research Associate

Timothy A. HallAssistant Professor of Social SciencesGeorgia Institute of Technology

Faculty CommitteeUniversity of California, San Diego

Paul D. Saltman. ChairVice-Chancellor. Academic AffairsProfessor of Biology

Stanley A, ChodorowProfessor of History

Peter F. CowhcyAssistant Professor of Political Science

Doris A. HowellProfessor of Community Medicine

Sanford A. LakoffProfessor of Political Scicncc

Jacqueline P. WisemanProfessor of Sociology

Project Director

George A. ColburnUniversity of California. San Diego

National Board

David P. Gardner, ChairPresident. University of Utah

Carl N. DeglerProfessor of HistoryStariford U niversity

Robert C. ElliottProfessor of LiteratureUniversity of California. San Diego

Georgie Anne GeyerColumnist. Los Angeles Times Syndicatc

Richard LeonardEditor. Milwaukee Journal

Thomas O'ConnellPresidentBellevue (Wash.) Community College

Paul D. SaltmanUniversity of California. San Diego

Gerald WarrenEditor, San Diego Union

Illustrator

Geoffrey MossWashington Post Writers Group

Dorothy K. Newman. et al.

ARTICLE BOOKLET FOR THE TWELFTH COURSE BY NEWSPAPERENERGY AND THE WAY WE LIVEA Courses by Newspaper Publication

Distributed by United Press International

Published by Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company3627 Sacramcnto Street. San Francisco. CA 94118

0 1980 by the Regents of the University of CaliforniaAll rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-87835-090-X 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 I 0

Preface

Despite a consensus that the era of abundant, cheapenergy is over and that continued dependence on

foreign energy sources can be a threat to our nationalsecurity, there is still no agreement on solutions toAmerica's energy problems. The fifteen articles in thisbooklet explore the nature and dimensions of our cur-rent energy dilemma, place it in historical perspective,and consider its implications for our way of life as indi-viduals and as a nation. The potentials and limitationsof alternative energy sourcessuch as fossil fuels.nuclear, and solarare examined, along with themoral, social, political, and economic issues involved inour energy choices.

These articles were originally written for the twelfthCourse by Newspaper, ENERGY AND THE WAYWE LIVE, offered in newspapers throughout thecountry for the first time in winter/spring, 1980. MelvinKranzberg, Callaway Professor of the History of Tech-nology at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was aca-demic coordinator for this course.

Courses by Newspaper (CbN). a national programoriginated and administered by University Extension.University of California. San Dicgo, develops news-paper articles and reI4,ed educational materials that arcused as the basis of college-level courses. Hundreds ofnewspapers and participating colleges and universitiesthroughout the country cooperate in presenting thesecourscs to the general public.

Each course features a series of weekly newspaperarticles, written by distinguished university scholarsand other experts. Supplementary materials include abook of readings and a study guide for interested read-ers, audio cassettes, and a Source Book for communitydiscussion leaders and instructors.

Colleges within the circulation area of participatingnewspapers offer thc opportunity for readers to meetwith local professors and cam college crcdit. If no localcollege or university is participating, crcdit arrange-ments can be made with the Department of Independ-ent Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Min-nesota 55455.

This particular course was prepared in conjunctionwith a nationwidc dialogue. "Energy and thc Way WeLive: A National Issues Forum,m' coordinated by the

American Association of Community and Junior Col-leges with funding by the National Endowment for theHumanities and thc U.S. Department of Energy. Aseries of National Public Radio broadcasts and cabletelevision programs. along with hundreds of commu-nity forums across the nation, are part this majoreffort to engage the nation in a thoughtful discussion ofenergy issues.

The first course by Newspaper. America and theFuture of Man, was offered in the fall of 1974. Subse-quent courses have included:

In Search of the American DreamTwo segments of The American Issues ForumOceans: Our Continuing FrontierMoral Choices in Contemporary SocietyCrime and Justice in AmericaPopular Culture: Mirror of American LifeTaxation: Myths and RealitiesDeath and Dying: Challenge and ChangeConnections: Technology and Change

To date. approximately 1300 newspapers and 900colleges and universities have presented these courses.Approximately fifteen million people read thc articlesfor each course. and almost fifty-five thousand personshave carried credit through Courses by Newspaper.

Courses by Newspaper has bccn fundcd sincc itsinception in 1973 by the National Endowment for thcHumanities. a federal agency created in 1965 to sup-port education. research. and public activity in thehumanities. Supplemental funding for this course hasbccn contributed by the Public Understanding in Sci-cncc program of the National Scicncc Foundation.which has as its primary purpose the improvement ofthe content and process of communication between thescientific and nonscientific communities. We gratefullyacknowledge their support.

wa also wish to thank United Press International.which has cooperated with CbN since 1975 in distribut-ing the articles to participating newspapers across thecountry.

The views presented in these articles. however. arethose of the authors only and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the University of California or of thefunding and distributing agencies.

4

Contents1. Our Energetic Lifestyle 1

Dorothy K. Newman

2. "Cry Havoc" or "Cry Wolf': The Nature of the "Energy Crisis" 4S. David Freeman

3. Substitutes for Human Muscle: Past Crises 7Lynn White, jr.

4. Multiplying Energy: 19th and 20th Century Developments 10John G. Burke

5. Plenty and Profligacy: Energy and Growth in America 13Daniel Bell

6. Prelude to Crisis 16Norman Metzger

7. Other People, Other Patterns of Energy Use 19Joel Darmstadter

8. The International Politics of Energy 22John K. Cooley

9. The Global Lifeboat: Energy and the Third World 25Kenneth E. Boulding

10. Conventional Fuels in Transition 28Don E. Kash

11. Nuclear Energy: A Faustian Bargain?Alvin M. Weinberg

12. Solar Energy and "Appropriate Technologies"Wilson Clark

13. Making Our Own: Synthetic FuelsJohn H. Gibbons and William Upton Chandler

14. More Through Less: Effective Energy UseDenis Hayes

15. Choosing Our Future: Choices and TradeoffsMelvin Kranzberg

31

34

37

41

44

1. Our Energetic LifestyleDOROTHY K. NEWMAN

1

6

Americans are the world's most gluttonous energyconsumers. With about 5 percent of the world's

population, we gobble up one-third of all energy usedin the world.

We self-righteously chide Third World countries fortoo rapid population growth, while if we add our Lars toour human population, the total is increasing muchfaster than are Third World populations.

Adding cars to people for assessing growth may seemoutrageous. But cars use far more nonrenewable or-ganic materials per year than people do. Besides. carsare extensions of Americans; adding them to people ismerely giving cars their rightful place in our culture.

Furthermore, this arithmetic emphasizes that our en-ergy use IS directly tied to our lifestyles. Public policiesto save energy must therefore take into account whetheror how to change lifestyles. for the evidence indicatesthat those Americans who use the most energy are unwilling to make sountary sacrifices for conservation.Conservation has been effective only when backed bylaw.

How Much We Use

The things we buy. use. and repair. and the sen ices wedemand for our communities, consume huge amountsof energy that do not appear on household utility billsor on gas pump meters, which measure direct energyuse. But we use four times as much indirect energy tomaintain our lifestyle.

You can figure out your own energy consumption byusing a Lifestyle Index, developed by Albert J. Fritschof the Center for Science in the Public Interest, whichprovides an energy factor for every item one uses, eachactivity engaged in. and each service provided.

For instance, clothing involves energy costs in mak-ing the fabric, and designing. sewing, and shipping thegarment. If you charge it instead of paying cash. thecosts in billing machine usage. paper, and postage mustbe added. Or take government services: we must as-sume our share of energy use in keeping offices run-ning. roads repaired, police on the beat, and trashremoved.

Food and grocery packaging is especially energy in-tenhive. We must account not just for soda pop, but forthe bottle and everything that led up to the final prod-uct. including the ads and neon signs that say it's re-freshing. And it's not just running an automobile thatwe must consider. but the steel. chrome, rubber. plas-tics. glass, upholstering, and the energy used to makeall the other parts and extras.

Who Uses Most

Secondary energy usewhat goes into making andmaintaining our goods and servicesmatches the pat-tern of primary or direct energy use in our homes and inrunning our cars.

I

Seseral recent sun eys show that primar energy usevaries according to income and location. The better offyou are, the more energy you use both inside andoutside the home, especially in transportation.

In 1975. after the Arab oil embargo, the well-off(S25.000 or more income) used 73 percent more natu-ral as than low-income families MOM or less for afamily of four). more than twice the electricity. andover four times the gasoline.

Households differ widely in the kind of house and thenumber and kind of conseniences they ha'e. The well -off live in big homes. exposed on four sides to theweather. with large windows. more than one bathroom,and central air conditioning. Such homes use largeamounts of energy for heating space and water. and forcoolingthe most energy - intensive requirements in ahouse.

The well -to -do also lime many more electrical appli-ances than lower-income households, including suchlarge energy-intensive kinds as frost-free refrigerators.,color TVs, and self-cleaning ovens.

In contrast. most low-income households live in smallhomes or apartments with one bath. Many have only ablack and white TV: their refrigerators are not auto-matically defrosted. their cis ens are hand - cleaned, andthey are usually without air conditioning.

Using an appliance index that weights householdappliances according to their average energy use wefind that two-thirds of the low-income households hadvery low appliance index scores is 1972-13. and two-thirds of well-off households had very high scores.

Obviously. those with less income arc not just usingless energy. but doing without many work-saving fea-tures others enjoy. All appliances together. however,use only 15 percent of the energy Americans consumedirectly.

The not so obvious significance of the appliance in-dex is its almost perfect correlation with total energyuse by the household. It is a symbol of lifestyle. Thehigh appliance index household tends to be an energygobbler; the low appliance user is an energy conserver.

Such a conserver, however. uses energy sparingly,not with the goal of energy conservation. but becausethe household cannot afford the cost of energymenof enough cncrgy for health and minimal comfort.

Conservation Problems

This is a critical distinction. It is evident in the paradoxthat the rich conserve the most energy by adding in-sulating features to their homes, but they also use themost energy. Low-income households, on the otherhandcalled "nonconservers'' by somearc mostoften renters; they have no opportunity for such con-servation measures, or they cannot afford the initialexpense of even fundamental weatherizing in anticipa-tion of future savings.

'7

A comparison of households before and after the oilembargo shows those most likely to hate reduced theirheating and cooling loss made energeonsuming addi-tions simultaneously. thereby cancelling their energysittings. These are the very households where conserva-tion can make the most difference. but their "oluntaryenergy saving appears inextricably mixed with the ap-peal of greater comfort and ostentation in living son.dards.

The automobile is a good example. About half of allenergy households consume is for transportation.mostly by auto. Half of all low-income households hat eno car: those who have. use it chiefly to get to work.Jobs have spread out, making it more evident than everthat public transit systems hate earned the jibe. "Youcan't get there from here.-

Upper-middle and high-income households hate twoor more ears. use set eral times the amount of gasolineLitho.... do. drive larger and newer ears more miles. andtake more long trips. by air as well as by automobile.The energy intensive transportation lifestyle of the well-off did not decline after the oil embargo.

Only those with few resources use energy sparingly.They cannot conserve very much on their own, andthey need help to protect them from energy disadvantage.

Poltey Implications

So far. major changes in energy policy stress makingeverything more costly, but high prices alone do notdeter the American high energy eonsunier, who has themost leeway for spending or saving both energy andmoney. Such policies only perpetuate our current en-ergy lifestyle.

How. then. can lifestyles be changed? Conservationmust begin where lifestyle is shaped where wrappingsbecome fancier. car styles more numerous and eve:changing. apartments and houses advertised for their"luxury" features. and new buildings constructed andfurnished to impress us with their opulence.

Energy-sating is a hard sell to Americans. Such ahard sell requires hard-nosed policies that are clear andfair. including gasoline rationing; a federal tax on in-efficient and nonessential t chides. with proceeds to beused for det eloping community-connecting transit sys-tems. tax advantages for building or retrofitting struc-tures according to energy conserving standards: andmandatory building codes. Additionally, more federalfunds are needed for research and technological de-velopment in the energy field.

In this "moral equivalent of war.' our first priority isto create and sate energy. The dollar cost is high. thebenefits higher.

i.

1

1

1

k

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DOROTHY K. NEWMAN kat consonant andlecturer in socioeconomics wh.ise recent work hasincluded research for the U.S. Department of Labor.She received a Ph.D. in sociology from Yale Universityand is the author of Let Them Freeze in the Dark andcoauthor of several books and reports including Protest.Politics, and Prosperity: Black Americans and WhiteInstitutions; The American Energy Consumer: and

t Gasoline Usage and the Poor.

3

8

2. "Cry Havoc" or "Cry Wolf"The Nature of the "Energy Crisis"

S. DAVID FREEMAN

In 1859 Edwin Drake started producing oil from aweli in Pennsylvania, and the world has been running

out of oil ever since.Oil is a "nonrenewable" energy source; there's only

a certain amount of it on earth. The same goes fornatural gas, coal and uranium.

In 1978, these four finite sources supplied about 96percent of U.S. energy consumption. Almost half camefrom oil and a fourth from natural gas. Coal accountedfor 18 percent and nuclear, 4 percent. Hydro (water)power and other renewable resources supplied onlyabout 4 percent of U.S. energy and 6 percent of theworld's energy.

The current energy shortage, however, is not theresult of the limited supply of nonrenewable fuels.Rather. it results from the failure of production to keepup with growing demand because of economic, environ-mental. and political constraints.

These constraints make it impossible for the UnitedStates to produce its way out of the energy shortageunless we curb our demand.

Productive Capacity

Energy supply is usually discussed in terms of the quan-tities of discovered fuel remaining in the ground, called"reserves," or the ultimate size of the energy sources.called "resources."

However. it is productive capacitythe amount thatcan be delivered to each home or car or industry eachday that is the key figure. Oil in the ground might justas well he mud if the capacity and incentive to produceand sell it don't exist.

The pace at which wells. mines. refineries. and otherlinks in the energy chain are di cloped depends partlyon the price paid by consumers. As long as MiddleEastern oil was selling at low prices that reflected itslow production costs and was readily available. therewas little incentive to develop domestic alternatives.

Now that imported oil is priced much higher byOPEC and its mailability is unreliable. it is necessaryfor us to use less and to produce more costly domesticenergy. But since no one guarantees future prices, in-%est ments by prt% ate companies for higherpricedsources will lag.

Price alone doesn't govern the rate of oil production.Emironmental laws and impacts on nearby communi-ties rightly place constraints on the rate of energy pro-duction. The world's proven rescr%cs of crude oil totalahout 650 billion barrels. enough to List about 30 scarsat current rates of consumption. "Estimated reserves,`'those thought to exist but not yet discovered. may totalroughly three times as much.

Yet, even if we created an energy company's dreamworldhigh prices. no environmental laws. and lenientgovernment policiesthe rate of growth in energy pro-duction. especially petroleum. would still he constrained

because existing fields are heing depleted; new oneswill be smaller, and more difficult to locate.

The most severe constraint, however. is that theOPEC nations have learned that holding back on oilproduction enables them to keep increasing prices asconsuming nations bid ever higher for limired supplies.

But domestic production can't grow fast enough tomeet growing demands. The United States now importsalmost half its oil; if we are to cut back on imports froman oil-short world market, we must practice conserva-tion and develop substitutes for oil.

Most of the problems of oil production also apply tonatural gas, except relatively little natural gas is im-ported. The "easy to find" reservoirs have been dis-covered and are rapidly being depleted. Even withoutprice controls, which dampen the incentive to explorefor new sources, it will he difficult to find the remaininggas as rapidly as existing reservoirs are depleted.

The world's proven reserve of natural gas is about2,200 trillion cubic feet; its estimated resource, about8,150 trillion cubic feet. Proven reserves of gas in theUnited States are about 200 trillion cuhic feet, enoughto last only 10 years at present consumption levels.Even if the most optimistic estimates of undiscoveredgas reserves prove true, U.S. production of natural gaswill be sevetely curtailed in 30 to 50 years.

Coal and Nuclear Energy

Coal also illustrates our frustrating energy dilemma.Coal resources are large, compared to petroleum. Theproven U.S. reserves could last about 700 years atpresent consumption rates. But ohstacles to mining itand burning it in a socially acceptable manner havelimited its use, and new technologies to convert coal toelectricity and synthetic fuels need perfecting. if we cansole these environmental and technical efficiency proh-lems. coal could supply a growing share of our needswell into the future.

Nuclear energy is a question mark, largely becausethe public fears it, especially after the Three Mile Islandincident. In the next two decades the amount of ura-mum in the ground isn't likely to be 41 dinning factor.But, if more efficient nuclear plants cannot be per-fected. nuclear fission is a relatively small source ofenergy, no larger than our oil and natural gas resources.

The United States could get energy from nonrenew-ahle sources yet to be cweloped. such as shale oil or tarsands. It is estimated that we haw 2.000 hillion barrelsof oil in shah:. more than all the crude oiI in the Mid-east. But the sheik! oil poses awesome environmentalprohk ms. and other sources are untested and likely tobe very expensive.

Renewable Sources

%%loos!). our nonretteuable energy sources are goiagto run out sonic day. The problem then is to de% clop

5

1 0

renewable or superabundant sources and use our fossilfuels and uranium wisely to bridge the gap is the mean-time.

There are four potentially major sources of "durableenergy that should be pursued: the nuclear breeder.fusion. geothermal power. and solar energy.

The nuclear breeder holds promise of energy abun-dance. A breeder reactor is fueled by plutonium-239instead of the uranium-235 used in today's reactorsWhile a breeder reactor operates. it "breeds" more ofthis plutonium fuel from uranium-238. which is abun-dant. This "breeding" of fuel could allow the knownresoles of uranium to fuel breeder reactors for manycenturies. But development of the breeder is cloudedby concerns mer safety. proliferation of atomic bombsfrom its fuel, and escalating costs.

Fusion power is. in a sense. an energy source aspowerful as the sun in a reactor here on earth. Fusioncould supply an almost unlimitet: amount of energy.But after 30 years of intensive effort, the scientific

feasibility of fusion has yet to be established For now.it's a long shot.

Geothermal power. using geyser steam. seems morediffuse and difficult to harness than the sun. Geothermalsites in the United States are scattered. and harnessingthem presents major engineerim, and environmentalproblems.

Solar energy offers the best possibility for our high-energy civilization to continue. Using the sun to heatbuildings is practical today. but harnessing the sun togenerate electricity on a large scale w ill require all ouringenuity. Whether the nation rises to that challengemay well determine our fate in the next century.

For the moment we are short of energy and newsources are many years away. And the shortages willgrow if we don't curb our wasteful appetite for energy.Any policy not rooted in programs to conserve energyby making the American economy more energy-efficientis doomed to failure.

Conservation is our quickest and cheapest source ofsupply.

4.

I

r.-

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

S. DAVID FREEMAN has been chairman ofthe Board of Directors of the Tennessee ValleyAuthority since 1977. He previously served on theWhite House energy staff and as an energy andresources consultant to the Senate CommerceCommittee. From 1971 to 1974. he headed the FordFoundation's Energy Policy Project. He is the authorof Energy: The New Era.

6

3. Substitutes for Human Muscle:Past CrisesLYNN WHITE, JR.

7 1')-4.4

The words "energy crisis" imply that what the worldis now experiencing is an unpleasantness Oat will

be fairly brief and will be solved by some sort of technological fix.

Don't hold your breath until that happens. It motake centuries.

There have been past societiesthe Periclean Age.for examplethat had very limited, even dwindling.sources of energy but didn't worry greatly about thesituation or do much to remedy it.

Rome was a magistral civilization that got a lot of itsenergy from plain human muscle. especially the musclesof slaves. But the poor were scarcely better off thanslaves. It seems never to have occurred to an educatedRoman that slavery kept the wages of free labor atabysmal levels by its competition.

And since so hign a proportion of the populationlived in great poverty, it was doubtless politically rashto develop other sources of energy or labor-saving de-vices that would put people out of work. When. in thefirst century, an engineer offered Emperor Vespasian anovel machine that could hoist the great columns of anew temple at reduced labor costs. the Emperor re-warded him but refused to use his device. saying. -1must feed the little people."

This attitude may account for Roman indifferencetoward the water-mill. which was invented in the lirstcentury before Christ. One early mention of it is in alovely Greek poem that urges the slave women to sleeplate because the water nymphs have taken over theirformer task at su -up of grinding by hand the flour forthe meals of the atty. No doubt it is bad social strategyto let slaves sleep late. The water-mill was not spreadrapidly, or its uses diversified. until after the collapse ofthe Western Roman Empire and the general conver-sion of Europe to Christianity.

Decline of Muscle Power

I should be happy to connect the spread of water powerwith Christian opposition to slavery; for slavery de-clined notably in this period. There is. however. noevidence that Christians in either Antiquity or theMiddle Ages condemned sla% cry. The withering of sla% -cry was probably caused by failure of slaves to repro-duce themselves even at the rate the free populationdid, which was low. Moreover, the decay of Rome'smilitary power. and less frequent conquests. resulted ina short supply of new slaves.

The Romans thus hiced an increasing shortage Et!workers. Museleoower was giving out. Yet the} didamaztngly little to find substitutes for muscle... Perhapsthe chief reason why the Roman world went to pieceswas failure to recognize and grapple with this problem.

It was not until about the year 840 that waterpowerwas applied in Europe to industrial tasks other thanmilling grain. The first signal of a new era came at the

8

abbey of Saint Gall in Switzerland: water-powered triphammers were pounding the mash for beer. Then wedisco% er the same device felting cloth. Soon such auto-matic machines were helping to tan leather. crush ore.pump bellows of forges. prepare the pulp for paper.and do the laundry. In 1204 the first watenpowered sawappeared in Istirmandy. and in 1384 the lirst poweredblast furnace in Belgium.

The Medieval Mentality

AU this reflects a mentality worlds apart from that ofthe R0111411S. Medieval Europe lirst developed what wethink of as the -modern" ideal of a capital-intensive.labor-saving technology. In the 1180s, for example. theEuropean type of windmill was invented on the flatlands of Eastern England. and it spread as fast asmoving pictures did in :he early 20th ceni .ry. TheRomans scarcely eared about improving energy re-sources: the Middle Ages were filled with enthusiasmfor natural power and new uses of it.

Inevitably there was ecological backlash In the later13th century water-powered saws were prohibited inone valley of the French Alps because their new pro-ductivity of lumber had devastated the forests In 13224in English observer credited the deforestation of Eng-land in part to the search for tong spars to make thevanes of windmills.

New technologies had contributed in other ways to ashortage of wood. Beginning in the 10th century, improved agricultural methods had begun to producemuch more food, and population had skyrocketed. Thismeant increased needs for fuel, which then meant wood.Application of power machines to metallurgical pro-cesses reduced costs, increased demand, and put furtherstrains on the wood supply for props in [nines. forsnicking. and for forging. Wooden ships. wagons, andhouses increased in number and size.

To make matters wor - Europe's climate began get-ting colder so more wood was needed for domesticheating. By the late 13th century a wood famine wasdemnding on Europe.

In England the poor, unable to buy wood, turned tocoal, w hick was more accessible than elsewhere andcheaper than wood. Consequently. by 13(N) Londonhad a severe smog problem.

Wood Famine

Thus the rapidly advancing, technology of the MiddleAges. hay ing first produced a higher standard of livingthan ev cr be fore. and a larger population. at last broughtabout an energy crisis. pollution. and much humanmisery.

The wood crisis was temporarily solved not by atechnological fix but by 41 vast human tragedy that hadlittle to do with the state of engineering: the BlackDeath of 1347-1350. In i first sweep the plague killed

probably one-third of Europe's population. By 1400Europe contained only about half as many people as in1347. Production fell because half of the market hadvanished. Pressure on woodlands declined. and forestsgradually restored themselves.

Population generally remained fairly static until the16th century. when it rose again. By about 1575 Eng-land was once more suffering from a wood famine.People turned quickly to coal again, not only for do-mestic purposes but also for manufacturing bricks, glass.soap. sugar. salt and the like. But for a long time coalcould not be used in many industrial processes. notablythe metallurgical. It was not until 1709almost 200years after the wood famine had once more becomeacutethat coke was first used to smelt iron.

From Coal to Steam

The prolonged effort to replace wood with coal led to asteady increase in coal production. Mines went deeper.and the risk of their flooding rose. This led Englishinventors to try new kinds of pumps to rid the mines ofwater.

The breakthrough was Thomas Newcomen's steam

pump of 1712. Late in the 1700s James Watt so greatlyimproved the steam engine that steam produced by coalbecame the typical e:iergy used in 19th-century industry.

It was the first new source of power discovered sincethe invention of the windmill 600 years earlier. It grewout of the effort to substitute coal for wood as theprimary fuel and thus meet the energy problem thathad begun to afflict Europe severely 500 years earlier.and which, after the catastrophic "solution" of theBlack Death. had returned as a threat in the 16thcentury.

Perhaps the Romansor at least their prosperousdecision-makerswould not have been bothered byany of these developments, as they were not greatlybothered by the growing muscle famine of their ownperiod. But people in the Middle Ages took the ideal ofa power-based technology seriously. as we. their de-scendants. do today.

Finding a fix for the present petroleum famine isbecoming the chief goal of our society. because that isthe way our minds work. But it may be found moreslowly than we expect. The interim may call for socialdiscipline on our part as well as for inventiveness.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

LYNN WHITE, JR. is University Professor ofHistory Emeritus at the University of California. LosAngeles. where he joined the faculty in 1958. From1943 to 1958. he was president of Mills College. havingpreviously taught at Princeton and Stanforduniversities. He is the author of Medieval Religion andTechnology and Medieval 'technology and SocialChange. Since 1970. he has been editor of Viator:Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

14

4. Multiplying Energy: 19th and20th Century Developments

JOHN G. BURKE

10

15

In 1952 President Truman's Materials Policy Commis-sion clearly warned that in the 1970s the United States

would be dependent on Middle East oil. and that un-stable political conditions there could result in a seriousenergy shortage in America.

The Commission's prediction, which turned out to besurprisingly accurate. was based on the Net that afterWorld War II oil production in the United States nolonger met domestic demand. and we became a netimporter of crude oil.

But fev people heeded the Commission's report orits plea for energy conservation. After all. Americahad always had abundant energy resources. The Com-mission's bleak outlook was, for most Americans,just another example of how wrong-headed "experts'can be.

It is true that the increasing availability of cheap andflexible sources of energy was one of the most impor-tant factors hi the transformation of America from apredominantly agricultural nation in 1850 to an indus-trial giant a century later. In 1950, in fact. the UnitedStates consumed about fifteen times more energy thanit had in 1850.

What most people failed to realize. how.%er. wasthat in the process of industrialization, our economicand social organization, our jobs and our daily routineshad become increasingly reliant on the mailability ofpetroleum products. The Materials Policy Commissionclearly perceived the true state of affairs.

Wood, Water and Wind

Until about 1880 America depended on wood. water.and wind for its energy needs. The primeval forestswere a hindrance to people seeking land to farm. butwhen they fell to the axe they provided huge quantitiesof wood. Wood was practically free. and it was con-sumed in the miring open fireplaces (if the pioneers. inthe lireivxes of locomotives and steamboats. and iniron blast furnaces and other industrial processes re-quiring heat. In 1850 about 100 million ixirdsin crfour cords per capitaof word were burned annually.a very large amount when one realizes that a cord ofwood is four feet wide by lour feet high by eight feetlong.

For local manufacturing. water power. prmidei byhuge water wheels or primitive turbines. was plentiful.The Pawtucket Falls of the Merrimack River poweredthy textile mills of Lowell. Massachusetts. and the GreatFalls of the Passaic River provided Paterson. New ler-sc, . with the energy for its silk. jute. gun. and locomo-tive factories. As the 19th century progressed. watert u; binds became more common and more efficient. fore-shadow ing the large hydroelectric plants of moderntimes.

Windmills dotted the eastern seaboard mid accom-panied the westward expansion. The Haliaday windmill,

used to grind flour, pump water. and saw wood, was afamiliar fixture on most farms and ranches of the greatplains. Windmills rapidly disappeared from the land-scape. however, after the Rural Electrification Adminis-tration brought electricity to rural areas beginning in the1930s.

Much earlier. however. in the period 1855 to 1885.four developments stimulated massive industrializationand caused a drastic shift from wood, water, and wind toother energy sources. The first was the discovery andemployment of the Bessemer and open hearth processesfor manufacturing steel inexpensively. The second wasthe appearance of a new sciencethermodynamics.whose application enabled engineers to design moreefficiently steam and other engines that converted heatinto mechanical work. The third was the drilling of theDrake well in 1859 at Titusville.. Pennsylvania, whichushered in the era of petroleum. The fourth was thefounding in the early I88th of the electric generatingindustry.

Age of Coal

Cheap steel rails made possible the nationwide expan-sion of the railway network. Shipbuilders constructedsteel ships. steel girders were used in bridges and laterin skyscrapers. and steel wire fenced the cattle ranchesof the west. Wood. however. was no longer a suitablefuel for the rapidly expanding steel mills. Steelmakersturned to coal and built their plants near the extensivecoal reserves of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.

Coal was also found to be a cheaper, more con-venient fuel both for railway locomotives and for urbanbuildings and residences. By the mid- I880s coal hadbecome the nation's chief energy source.

The at of coal and steel demanded more powerfulengines for mining, for the manufacture and fabricationof steel. for transoceanic steamships and transcontinen-tal locomotives. and for driving electric generators.Using the laws of thermodyrianues, engineers learnedhow to employ steam efficiently at very high tempera-tures and pressures. and their efforts culminated in thedevelopment of high-speed steam turbines.

Electricity Revolution

Initially. electricity provided power for arc lighting.street railways. and electric illumination of buildings.Electric motors. however. introduced about :900. pro-duced a revolution in industry and the home. Largeelectric motors were attached directly to the IllaSSACrolls fabricating thick steel plates or girders. while tin)motors powered % acuuni cleaners mid washing ma-chines.

In pros Wing an efficient power source for each indi-vidual machine. the motor caused the redesign of fac-tories and the reorganization of industrial work. Simi-larly. it transformed household work. The electric gen-

1

era tang industry exploded. expanding its capacity morethan 650 times between 1900 and 1950. In the process.generating costs wcrc dramatically reduced, and theprice of electricity was progressively lowered.

Urbanization

A gradual but drastic change in the organization ofsociety accompanied the process of industrializationAn increasingly dwindling proportion of our populationengaged in agriculture or was needed to provide ourfood. Mass production industries employed armies ofworkers. causing massive urban growth, which, in turn.stimulated the expansion of service establishmentshospitals. hotels, department stores. groceries, and revtaurants.

City dwellers needed cheap and dependable trans-portation, energy to heat and light their homes. cookfood. and run vacuum cleaners, washing machines. andthe new electric refrigerators. The city began to re-semble a complicated machine, in which energy in itstarious forms was dispensed to consumers throughcomplex networks.

Industries became concentrated and were dominatedby such giant corporations as Standard Oil. U. S Steel.American Telephone & Telegraph, General Electric.and Du Pont. In turn, governmental bureaucracy bur-geoned in order to regulate trade and industry practicesand to check monopolies. and political power becameincreasingly centralized in the federal government.

Gasoline and Diesel Engines

In the late 19th century, three German engineersNicholas Otto. Eugcn Langen, and Rudolf Dieselbecame convinced that centralized, expensive energysources gave an overwhelming advantage to industrialbarons. They determined to design and manufactureinexpensive power sources which would enable smallentrepreneurs to compete successfully with the giants.The eventual products wcrc the gasoline and dieselinternal combustion engines, which. ironically, gavebirth to the greatest mass production enterprises of the20th centurythe automobile and truck industry.

As petroleum production increased in response tothe demand torsi:saline. many electric generatingplantsand other industries took advantage of the availabilityof the cleaner liquid fuel oil or of natural gas to firetheir boilers. The role of coal as an energy sourcedeclined sharply. while the consumption of oil multi-plied twenty-five times between 1900 and 1950.

In 1952. when the Materials Policy Commission re-port was published, few government leaders thoughtabout supporting research to enable the ailing, coalindustry to exploit deep deposits profitably or to processsuccessfully coal having a high sulfur content.

Future energy requirements apart from transporta-tion. it was thought, would come from a new energysourcethe atom, which gave promise of clean. de-pendable power for the foreseeable future.

.e.:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Y JOHN G. BURKE is Professor of History at theUniversity of California. Los Angeles and was coursecoordinator for the eleventh Course by Newspaper."Connections: Technology and Change." Holdingdegrees in both history and metallurgy, he joined theUniversity of California faculty in 1962. He is theauthor of Origins of the Science of Crystals, coauthor ofThe Science of Mhterals in the Age of Jefferson. andeditor of The New Technology and Human Values andof Technology and Change.

Twenty-five years ago, a distinguished Americanhistorian. David M. Potter, wrote an influential

book entitled People of Plenty. It was a convincingdemonstration of the effects of economic abundance onthe distinctive American character.

Only in America could such a book have been writ-ten. America was promises. and it seemed then as ifthose promises has been fulfilledin part because ofbountiful energy.

But do those promises still hold true? Now thatenergy has become more expensive, can we still be apeople of plenty?

American Bounty

One 01 the earliest English descriptions of AmericanMinty appeared in Eastward Ho, a comedy written in1605 by George Chapman and John Marston. Virginia.one of the characters declares, is as pleasant a countryas ever the sun shined on temperate and full of all

sorts of viands: wild boar there is as common as ourtamest bacon here...."

And in the 1780s, in one of the most famous observa-tions by an early traveler, Hector St. John de Cre-coeur wrote: "There is room for everybody in Amer-ica.... Does he want uncultivated lands? Thousands ofacres present themselves, which he may purchase cheap.Whatever be his talents or inclinations, if they aremoderate. he may satisfy them. I do not mean. thateveryone who comes will grow rich in a little time: no,but he may procure an easy and decent maintenance byhis industry."

But it was not just the fertile soil. the large forests.the vast seams of coat, the large veins of iron ore andthe Great Lakes and river system that tied these to-gether, that made us a people of plentythough allthese wcrc..ssential. America's primary bounty was theingenuity. energy. and character of its people.

Long before industrialization began in the 1840s,visitors remarked on the kinds of production and socialorganization that permitted the United States to takethe lead in manufactured goods. There was that largelyhome-taught genius Eh Whitney who. in setting up afactory to make muskets. in 1779 helped establish theprinciples of mass production: quantity. standardiza-tion, and interchangeability of parts. And Oliver Evansin the late 18th century invented a continuous flour-milting system which showed tnc way for the coordi-nated parking-house slaughter of animals. and later forthe assembly line of Henry Ford.

What made the American outpouring of goods pos-sible. of course. was bountiful energywater powerfrom the turbulent rivers, wood from the abundantforests. coal from the mines of Appalachia and south-ern Illinois. oil from western Pennsylvxna and laterfrom Texas and Oklahoma. Between 1820 and 1930. by

14

exploiting new sources of power. America increased40-fold the supply of energy that it could (=inland percapita.

Electricity and oil changed our lives. Through elec-tricity we could transform the night with light, providepower to drive machines. supply energy to lilt eleva-tors, run the home appliances that we take for grantedand the electronic devices whose physics we can onlydimly grasp. With oil. we heat our homes. fuel ourautos. trucks and planes. and grow our food throughpetrochemicals that provide feedstock and fertilizerThese developments demanded increasing amounts ofenergy. particularly oil.

But the days of cheap oil and cheap energy are gone.We are livingand will livein a very different era.

Early Warnings

There were warnings long ago. In 1893. in **The Signifi-cance of the Frontier in American History." the his-torian Frecle:rick Jackson Turner signaled that landfor centuries our most abundant resourcewas be-coming limited in supply.

In the early 1900s, President Theodore Rooseveltand Gifford Pinchot of the U.S. Forest Service led aconservation movement to husband and develop ournatural resources. The Ncwlands Reclamation Act of1902 proposed irrigation for desert lands. flood controlfor rampaging rivers. and deepening of shallow riversfor navigation.

Yet strikingly. all these programs collapsed as specialinterest groupssuch as the lumber, cattle, and powerindustriesobtained special advantages from Con-gress. Equally striking is our sense of prodigality that soaffected our view of the past that most of the U.S.history textbooks.give scant attention to the history ofconservation.

It was not until the 1960s that we became concernedabout our natural resources. By then, the United States.self-sufficient in energy throughout most of its history,had begun importing oil. And by 1973when theOPEC cartel imposed its embargo and tripled and thenquadrupled the price of oilour dependence on for-eign oil had risen to about 30 percent of our total oilusage.

Energy Independence

The United States is now trying to regain its energyindependence. This is necessary for political reasons sowe will not be blackmailed by foreign powers. It is

useful Er economic reasons so that we know the truemarket costs of energy.

We hi. re been told. however not by responsibleeconomists. but by headline-hunting politicians orsimple-minded moraliststhat we will have to changeour way of life totally and acquire new values.

19

1 thinkand the evidence showsthat such state-ments wildly exaggerate the facts and hinder the formu-lation of a rational policy.

Let us focus on the most visible symbol of our way 01life, the automobile. The automobile accounts for 76percent of the energy used for transportation, or slightlyunder 20 percent of all the energy we consume in theUnited States. (Since foreign oil accounts for 23.5 per-cent of our total energy. we can say. for dramatic sake,that the automobile consumes almost all the foreign oilwe import.)

We are told that Americans are prodigalthat weconsume four times as much gasoline per head asWestern Europeans. But such comparisons ignore thegreater size of the United States and its lower popula-tion density.

Given the distances in our country and the dispersalof homes and jobs. the automobile is a necessity for us.Before World War 11, when existing mass transit sys-tems were laid out. people traveled to the city to work.

Today, jobs are dispersedfor example, along Route128 that rings Boston; or in "silicon valley" from SanFrancisco to San Jose. where high technology firms arestrung out in a line; or in the corporate heauquartersthat fan out around New York City. A study of auto-mobile use in Portland, Oregon, showed that only 4percent of driving is for recreation.

Solving the Problem

The answer to our energy dilemma is not necessarily todrive less. but to drive more economically. Germansget 70 percent more mileage per gallon of gas than doAmericans: the English. almost twice as much.

The basic, and cheapest, mode of becoming energyindependent is thus conservation. Studies by the Amer-ican Physical Society and by the National Academy ofSciences. using 1973 figures. showed that by reducingheat losses from buildings. improving automobile effi-ciency and the like, the same U.S. living standard couldthen tically have been maintained with 40 percent lessenerm.

Is the idea of such conservation realistic? Followingthe oil embargo of 1973. Los Angeles instituted anenergy curtailment plan with mandatory targets forreducing the use of electricity, but with consumers them-selves implementing specific cuts.Thc response wasgratifying: residential use decreased 18 percent: com-mercial, 28 percent.. industrial. 11 percent.

The program brought dramatic savings with a mini-mum of sacrifice or change in lifestyles and with littleinvestment.

Could such a system work in the nation at large?We would have to apply some practical engineering.

some practical economics, and some practical common-sense.

Whether we will do so is a test of our national will.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DANIEL BELL has been Professor of Sociologyat Harvard University since 1969. Prior to receiving hisPh.D. from Columbia University. he was staff writerand managing editor of The New Leader and laterbecame managing editor olCommon Sense. Hecofounded The Public Interest in 1965 and served ascoeditor from 1965 to 1973. His books include Teletext:The New Networks of Information and Knowledge inComputer Society; The Cultural Contradictions ofCapitalism; The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: andThe Reforming of General Education.

15

20

6. Prelude to CrisisNORMAN METZGER

16

21

he energy crisis is really a crisis of oil and secon-darily one of natural gas. These two fuelswhich

are clean-burning, easy to transport, and adaptable tomany uses pros Ede three-quarters of our energy needstoday.

To understand our present predicament we must un-derstand how we came to be so heavily dependent onoil and natural gas.

Both are 20th-century fuels. Oil rose from barelymeasurable use around 1900 to a quarter share of totalU.S. energy consumption in 1930 and almost halt in1970. Natural gas consumption quadrupled between1930 and 1970.

Their spectacular growth has technological, political.and social roots. Repeating the 19th-century patternfor coal, we created new technologies that could takeadvantage of the unique properties of these fuels. Theinternal combustion engine is the most spectacular ex-ample.

We also found ways to move local fuels across thenation. Natural gas began to flow from the Southwestto the Midwest and East as the -Big Inch." -LittleInch" and other World War II pipelines huilt to trans-port petroleum across the country were tumed over tothe natural gas industry. Improved seamless weldedpipelines made transporting gas under high pressurepossible. creating new markets and greater demand.

Political and Social Changes

Technological changes moved in tandem with politicaland social transformations that assumed energy wouldhe available everywhere. in the form needed. andcheaplyas indeed it was.

Political changes included the passage of the RuralElectrification Act and the creation of the TennesseeValley Authority to deliver electrical power to the na-tion's limns and to the seven states drained by the Ten-nessee River and its trihutaries.

Low cost loans and mortgages through the GI Bill ofRights encouraged Americans to marry. haw children.and buy their own homes. beginning the baby and sub-urban booms. The Interstate Highway program startedin the 1950s. its mission to enable us to drive coast-to-coast without stopping for a traffic light.

These political markers were evidence of sleeper so-cial trends. Urbanization aimated. the proportion ofthe metropolitan population doubling between 1900and 1960. More people hough! ears. by 1970. 80 per-cent of all families had at least one. More women wentto work. with a third in the labor force 111 1930 andfihont half by 1977.

New Energy Demands

( (minion to all these changes was a heightened demandfor energy. In the post-war decades. the amount ofenergy used by each person in the United States rose

17

steadily, indicating the increasingly higher energy con-tent of the goods and services produced.

These exuberant needs for energy were met by oiland gas . indeed. these two fuels were vital to the growthof the American economy. where Gross National Prod-uct almost quintupled between l930 and 1977. Theenormous selonfidence that growth engendered, andvast discoveries in Texas, Louisiana. even Alaska. easedany anxieties about wedding ourselves almost exclu-sively to two finite fuels.

The internal combustion engine developed further,with horsepower a better sales lure than gas mileage:the interstate highway system was built on the premiseof cheap, ubiquitous gasoline. Air traffic, prop to jet.grew spectacularly even though it is a fuel-wasting wayto trasel short to medium distances,. compared to rail-roads, whose passenger role gradually eroded.

And there were all those appliances: refrigerators re-placed the ice box; washing machines. the washboard:air conditioners, the fan. New industrial processes,such as the electric are furnace of the steel industry,appeared. Production of plastics grew prodigiously.particularly after World War II, further raising the de-mand for petroleum.

Only the knighted would argue that these events.which formed the setting for the energy crisis of the1970s. were a mistake. A home of one's own, a car andthe highways to drive it on. clean heat in winter and airconditioning in summerall enriched American life.

And energy was cheap: its prices as :I proportion ofboth Gross National Product and of persona incomesfell steadily for several decades. New oil fields werediscovered: natural gas was so cheap and plentiful thatits market price was set at a level to encourage its use.

Danger Signs

But there were some ominous signs. including the veryfact that the United States depended largely on twofuels. Nuclear energy was not even up to the level ofhydropowerabout 4 percentuntil the 1970s. andcoal's share shrank and was increasingly restricted toelectrical power plants. "[he foel or oil imports rosefrom ahout 12 percent in 1950 to half in the 1970s. Andthe rate of oil and gas discovery per foot drilled wasfalling. as easily found fields had already ken tapped

But only the politician wishing early retirement wouldha -t: denied that more was better or would have pressedto consent; energy or to widen the array of fuel supplies

Moreoser. while we were raising our energy con-sumption. almost solely through the growth of oil and1111It11111 gas. we were foreclosing other options. For ex-ample. there was a post-war effort, through the Syn-thetic Fuels Act. to improve on the horrendously costlyconsersion processes that the Nazis had used to liquefycoal for fueling tanks and planes.

That effort withered as che:tp petroleum became

more widely available. as natural gas found nationalmarkets, and as the petroleum industry continued itsopposition to government support of alternative energysources. The result was to wpm crish coal research. andt. .lit coal's role as an alternativ c. to increasing importsof ever more costly oil.

And there was a seemingly unlimited supply of oil toimport. In the 1950s, new geophysical techniques led tothe discovery of large oil deposits in Kuwait, AbuDhabi. the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia. andIran. Productions costs from these new wells were onlyfive to forty cents per barrel compared to two to sixdollars in the United States. American oil companiespressed for an oil import program. which by "protect-ing" the nation from cheaper foreign oil accelerated thedepletion of domestic supplies.

The environmental movement, which began in the1960s. gained strength as the true price of energy be-came more apparentair polluted by fossil-fueledpower plants and automobiles; water heated as itcoursed through nuclear power plants before spillinginto rivers and lakes: oil slicks on Santa Barbara Bayand the English Channel.

The attack was well justified. but the immediate re-sponse led to other problems, For example. believing

that sulfur dioxide fre ni smoke stacks caused air pollu-tion, the government restricted the burning of high-sulfur coals. But the effects of suddenly depriving utili-ties of high-sulfur coalsfor which they had builtplants, structured their rates. arranged transportation.intensively sought customerswere not thought out.Many utilities switched to low sulfur oil rather thancompete in a seller's market for low sulfur coal. raisingthe demand for petroleum and refinery capacity beyondanything anticipated by the petroleum industry.

Also, the problems of coal raised the already highand. in retrospect, deceptive. attractions of nuclearfission for producing electricity.

The fortunes of oil and gas were thus deeply woveninto transformations that occurred in American societybeginning in the 1930s. These energy choices reflectedwhat American society valued. It wanted oil and gaspartly because of their convenience compared to coal.In turn, the changes that od and gas made possiblefrom the automobile age to "clean heat entered ourdefinition of a reasonable standard of life. Anu in lime.the environmental movement signaled that clear riversand air were sometimes of more value than an economypremised on ever more goods.

When the price of OPEC oil quintupled in the 1970s.the situation was ripe for an energy crisis.

NA

'vf, - ii.tl4

.:- '0...

*

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

NORMAN METZGER is senior editor in theOffice of Information of the National Academy ofSciences. He is the author of Energy: The ContinuingCrisis and Men and Molecules and has written onenergy for New Scientist, Popular Science, 71wSchtices, and Smithsonian. He also wrote andproduced an audioseries entitled Energy: A Dialoguefor the American Association for the Advancement ofScience.

1$

7. Other People, Other Patternsof Energy Use

JOEL DARMSTADTER

19

24

nergy is a means toward a desired end.1, is v Glued because it helps provide us with ameni-

ties that contribute to our sense of v,e11-being. Gasolinegives us mobility; heating fuels furnish comfort andwarmth: mechanized factory operation:, produce thediversity of goods that wc like to consume.

The statistics for other industrial nations. which con-sume less energy per capita than the United States.would seem to indicate that it is possible to achie% e theseamenities with a more economical use of energy thannow prevails in this country.

But how relevant are foreign examples?One faction contends we're misguided for hating

failed to do what Germany and some other countrieshave demonstrated can be done with effective publicpolicies, skillful industrial management. and prudentconsumption practices.

Another faction deplores our naivctd in not recogniz-ing the distinctive conditions of American society andis cons raced that ill-ad% ised efforts to transplant foreignexperience could choke our economy.

There is an element of truth in both arguments.

Energy and GDP

Ina purely statistical sense, those arguing that we shouldapply foreign energy-consumption practices to theUnited States are persuasive. If wc look at per capitaGross Domestic Product (GDP)the value of goodsand services produced domestically per person. which isroughly proportional to per capita incomewe findthat in several other countries this measure is similar tothat of the United States. yet per capita consumptionof energy is markedly below ours.

A concise way of depicting this is to measure theamount of energy consumption as.sociated with each510.000 of GDP in selected countries and express it inequivalent barrels of oil. The 1976 standings for ninecountries are as follows:

Barrels-of-Oil Equivalent per$10 thousand GDP (1976)

CanadaU.S.NetherlandsSwedenWest GerntaoyBritainItalyJapanFrance

115 barrels1008885747270

54

The ratio of energy to GDP in Germany is more than25 percent below ours, in Sweden, 15 percent lower. Yetboth are often. societies. In this list, only Canada usesmore energy than we do to produce a similar amount ofgoods.

However. before concluding from the German and

21)

Swedish examples that the United States could drasti-cally reduce its level of energy use without affetting ourliving standards and our economic activity. we mustlook at the complex factors that affect the differencesamong countries in energy/GDP ratios.

Structural Factors

One set of factors concerns differences in the geographicmake-up and industrial structure ot countries. In a studypublished several years ago. Resources for the Future. anonprofit research organization, found that about 40percent of the difference between the high energy/GDPratio in the United States and the lower European ratiosis due to such U.S. characteristics as the large size ofthe country and dispersed population. which requiregoods and people to mot,. 0% er long distances. Anotherexample is the U.S. preference for large. single-familyhomes.

It is debatable whether such features can simply ticdismissed as "energy-inefficient- attributes of Arne. I-can life. Certainly cheap energy, particularly wheregovernmental policy has kept it artificially cheap. facili-tated these evolving patterns. However, these deeplyrooted aspects ot American society cannot be turnedaround easily certainly not in less than the decades itwould take substantially to replace our existing housingand alter settlement patterns.

The Resources for the Future research disclosed otherfindings as well. For example. our high energy use isnot as some may thinka consequence of a top-hea%y industrial orientation. If the industrial sector inthe United States played as important a role within oureconomy as it does in Western Europe. we would con-sume even more energy than we do now.

Nor does climate expkin our high usage. On thecontrary, Europe has a lower energy/GDP ratio thanours despite proportionately greater heating and airconditioning requirements.

So, while some structural feature s such as distanceand housing can be cited in "extenuation" of high U.S.energy/GDP ratios, other factors. when standardizedfor comparability with Europe. would push our energyuse even higher.

The importance of structure in determining a coun-try's energy consumption can be illustrated by notingthat Canada (even when allowance is made for the coldclimate) uses more energy relative to income than wedo, This high energy usage is the result of historicallycheap hydropower mid abundant natural resources.which, m turn. resulted in Canada's specialization insuch energy-intensive actit Ines as metallurgy, pulp andpaper manufacturing, and chenucals production.

Energy Intensity

In addition to these structural factors. there is a second

et r--".4)

,

4

set of factors that affect differences n the amount ofenergy used: the energy intensitythat is, energy con-sumed for the same activity in various countries. Thesefactors account for roughly MI percent of the dilterencesin energy/GDP ratios between the United States andWestern Europe.

For example. the fuel economy of American cars hashistorically been very much poorer, and the energyconsumption per unit of output in a wide range ofAmerican manufacturing enterprises is distinctly higher,than in Europe.

These differences in energy intensities can be attrib-uted partly to the higher prices of foreign energypar-ticularly for motor fuel. And differences in price. inturn, arise partly because European prices have beenheld above the market level through taxation of energyand energy-using equipment. while in the United States.through controls. they have been held below marketlevel. In both cases. social policy has helped shapeenergy patternsdeterring use in Europe. encouragingit in the United States.

When one takes account of these cost differences.high U.S. energy intensities arc not necessarily eco-nomically inefficient or wasteful from the standpont of ahousehold or industrial plant, though the economy as awhole may be worse off because of misguided pricing forenergy.

Room for Improvement

Even whcrc the data indicate that one country's energyuse is more effective than another's, however. it doesnot mean that it cannot be improved. For example. U.S.'might transportation is. overall. less energy-intensivethan Western Europe's. But the energy intensity would

be Jill lower if Interstate Commerce Commission regu-lations would not dictate that a trucker shipping Georgiapecans northward, for instance, has to return with anempty truck.

Similarly, economical heating practices in Swedencould be still further enhanced if occupants of un-mtered apartments served by steam from district heat-ing plants did not use their windows to regulate theirheat!

The differences among countries in energy use are notfrozen into place. Between 1972, the year before theArab oil embargo. and 1976. for example. the gapbetween Sweden's energy/GDP ratio and ours nar-rowed from 28 percent to 15 percent The U.S ratio hasbeen declining while Sweden's has been rising. A nar-rowing of the gap with other countries seems likely aswell.

There is little doubt that a conservation momentumis gradually taking hold in this country. in part becauseof public policies. such as regulations for improved fueleconomy in new cars.

Do international comparisons. then, point to thepotential for significantly reduced energy consumptionwithout sacrifice of economic welfare? It would becavalier to conclude that we have nothing to learn fromforeign energy-using practicesespecially whcrc theserepresent a technological and behavioral adaptation tohigh energy costs, which are now beginning to confrontus. too.

At the same time. we would delude ourselves if wewere to conclude that the lower ratio of energy use toGDP in some other countries provides a formula forpainlessly lowering energy consumption in the UnitedStates.

411fr

AV.

. r

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

JOEL DARMSTADTER has been a seniorfellow at the Resources for the Future Center forEnergy Policy Research in Washington. D.C.. since1975. From 1966 to 1975, he was senior researchassociate at Resources for the Future and from 1957 to1966 was all economist with the National PlanningAssociation. He is the author of Conserving Energy:Prospects and Opportunities in the New York Regionand a coauthor of How Industrial Societies Use Energy:Energy in the World Economy: Middle Eastern Od andthe Western World: and. in 1979, Energy in America'sFuture: The Choices &fore Us.

21

- _-

,

(

1'

/ ..q.A\,.,

,-'\-0

1

-A,

I..

i*411O

ks

1-

Att

,e7--:ZA

INO

1 --

r

ki-

n early 1979. Iran's oil workers joined the revolutionthat hounded out their hated ruler. Shah Mohammed

Reza Pahlavi.By the year's end, seizure of American hostages in the.

U.S. Embassy in Tehran by the revolutionaries had esca-lated the situation beyond the mere loss of energysupplies from Iran into a major international crisis.

Cutbacks in Iran's oil exports, and leapfrogging pricehikes inside and outside the I3-nation Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were giantnew steps toward world power by the developing na-tions.

The process by which energy-rich states gained con-trol of their own resources and also political leverageover their Western customers was far more,. however,than just an exercise in current Muslim or Arab geo-politics. Its roots lie much deeper.

The Seven Sisters

In 1901, Muzzafereddin Shah of Iran granted gold pros-pector William Knox d'Arcy what was to become thefirst traditional Mideast oil concession. By the 1930s,seven big Western firms had come to dominate the worldenergy market,

In rough order of size, the majors, or "Seven Sisters,"have been Exxon, the Royal Dutch Shell group. Tex .co,.Standard Oil of California (known as Socal, marketingas Chevron), Mobil, Gulf, and British Petroleum. Insomc areas a smaller. "eighth sister" has been France'sCompagnie Francaise des Petroles.

Under the old concession system, the companies ranhuge oil-bearing territories almost like colonies. Hostgovernments had little control and shared minimally inprofits.

'enezuela was the first to break with this patternAfter its first free elections in 1948, a nationalistic gov-ernment passed an income tax law giving the govern-inent 50 percent of the oil companies' profitsat thattime a truly revolutionary step.

The 50-50 system spread quickly to the Mideast.where Saudi Arabia took the lead in demanding halfthe profits of the Arabian-American Oil Company(ARAMCO), owned then by four of the seven sisters:Exxon, Texaco, Socal and Mobil. -Profit," calculatedby deducting production cost from the crude oil price"posted" by the company, was split equally betweencompany and producer government, Kuwait, Iraq andothers soon followed.

Iran's efforts in the 1950s under Prime Minister Mo-hammed Mossadeq to break the concession system alto-gether and nationalize oil, brought confrontation be-tween Mossadeq and a coalition of the Shah, the British,and the U.S. CIAwhich brought the Shah back fromtemporary exile in 1953 in a military coup.

Before the 1950s, the seven sisters acted together to

23

establish a single world price for oil, based on the Gulf ofMexico oil price set by U.S. oil companies. Since Mid-east oil was vastly cheaper to produce than Gulf ofMexico oil, the major companies made enormous profitsin the Middle East.

By the I950s, however, Saudi Arabian Light oil hadreplacer: null of Mexico oil as the world's pricing yard-

Witen t1 .f.! Suez War of 1956 between President:-tsser';- Egypt and an Anglo - French- Israeli coalitiontemporal dy close.' the Sucz Canal to tankers, the priceof Saudi Arabian Light rose to a then unprecedented;,eight of $2.12 oer ban, (compared to $32 for someOt 1.7.0 spot trans-ctions in the late I970s).

Itlideits: oil-producing countries :Aielly tasted wealth,so when the toreign-owned companies unilaterally cutprices drastically again in 1959-60 without consultingproducer governments, the shock was rude.

Creation of OPEC

The offspring of this shock, fathered chiefly by two oilministers, Abdallah Tariki of Saudi Arabia and PerezAlfonso of Venezuela, was OPEC. It was conceived atthe first Arab Petroleum Congress of April 1959, andborn at a crisis meeting of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, andKuwait in Baghdad in 1960.

Eventually, the live charter members were joined byQatar, Libya, Indonesia, Abu Dhabi (now the UnitedArab Emirates), Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador and Gabon.

To force prices up to fair levels, OPEC in the 1960sregulated production. Its members also sought equityparticipation for host governments in decisions regard-ing production, distribution,. and pricing, first urgedupon ARAMCO by Saudi Arabia in 1964. When aworld seller? market for oil appeared in 1971, OPECmembers were able to elbow major companies, little bylittle, toward granting participation.

Revolutions in Iraq (1958), Algeria (1962). and Libya(1969) led those three Arab states to nationalize produc-tion and related operations like distribution and nutrket-ing. Gradually they gained full control of Western oiloperations on their sod. Other OPEC membersbranched out into creating their own petrochemical,natural gas. and tanker industries.

13y February 1973, a devaluing U.S. dollar led OPECto begin drastic price hikes to protect members' income:.Then, as U.S. import demand rose, the Arab oil em-bargo exploded upon the West. to support [gypt andSyria in their 1973 war against Israel.

World o.. prices quadrupled, and supplies drasticallytightened in the 1973-74 period, bringing world reces-sion. Despite such Western countermeasures as fornta-tion of the International Energy Agency to share scarcesupplies, a series of OPEC conferences not withoutinter-OPEC wranglingmoved prices upward againand again.

28

OPEC's Power

Thus, in the twenty years of OPEC's life, the oil-richlands of Africa. Asia and Latin America have risen fromtotal subservience to the industrial world outside theSoviet bloc to potential economic mastery over thatworld.

In 1960 the United States. Western Europe. andJapan were almost sole owners of the non-communistworld's energy sources and distribution system. By1979, they had become dependent for energy on about adozen oil-producing states. Drawing about half its oilfrom OPEC. the U.S. found that OPEC was increas-ingly able to influence its foreign policy.

True. the economic interdependence of the world hasmitigated this situation somewhat. Oil giants like SaudiArabia depend on the West for eserything from wheat toweapons. including the Western technology they need ifthey are to end this dependence.

Nonetheless. by 1979. Nigeria. black Africa's majorOPEC member. had begun to exert pressure on the U.S.to favor the political solution it sought in Rhodesia. andArab and Muslim OPEC members and their allies wereinfluencing policies of West Europe and Japan to favorthe Arab and Palestinian cause in the Mideast.

By combining skillful use of the oil weapon withextreme political acumen. President Sadat broke thestalemate with Israel in 1973.

First. with Syria. he waged limited war against Israel.Then with U.S. President Jimmy Caner, Sada' pursueda policy that they both termed "waging peace --leadingto the Egypt-Israel peace treaty signed in WashingtonMarch 26. 1979, the first which an Arab governmentever signed with the Jewish state.

Today, the U.S. struggles toward a coherent energypolicy. President Carter since 1977 has been seeking toallow U.S.-produced energy to rise toward world priceles els. thus encouraging U.S. domestic production whilethe North Sea, Alaska and other non-OPEC sources aredeveloped. and research goes forward on alternatives

Meanwhile, OPEC's constantly growing leveragefaces the U.S. with hard choices. Should it considerseizing oilfields or breaking blockades by use of militaryforce? Or should it consider reshaping US. foreignpolicy to please OPEC members?

Or finally, should the U.S. government try to curb.through legislation and mass education. America's in-satiable appetite for OPEC oil? These questions arecertain to engage the attention of Americans well intothe 1980s and beyond.

s4=11411F___.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

JOHN K. COO LEY has been defense andnational security affairs correspondent for The,Christian Science Monitor, Washington. D.C.. sinceOctober. 1978. having previously served for more thana dozen years as their Middle East correspondent. Afree-lance reporter in North Africa from 1957 to 1964.he has been a radio commentator for ABC Radio Newsand has served with the U.S. Embassy in Vienna andCasablanca. His books include Baol, Christ andMohammed: Religion and Revolution in North Africa;East Wind Over Africa; and Green March, BlackSeptember: The Story of the Palestinian Arabs.

24

29

At least half the world's population lives in povertyin rural areas in the tropical belt (and in China).

Their lives have been largely untouched by science-based techno logy or by use of fossil fuel resources, whichelsewhere have led to the luxuries of our "modern"world.

Now that these resources are becoming increasinglyscarce and expensive, are these so-called "Third World"countries condemned forever to stay in prescientificpoverty? Have they come too late to the feast of geologi-cally stored energy and materials?

The probability is uncomfortably high. Redwing thisprobability, through action and moral persuasion, mustbe one of our highest priorities.

Energy and Technology

The last 200 years have seen perhaps the greatest changein human history. This change has resulted from twoclosely related processes. One is the rise of science,which led to a great expansion of knowledge and itsapplication in science-based technology.

Thc other is the discoveryof fossil fuelscoal, oil andnatural gasand of uranium. Without either of thesedevelopments, the world of today would be strikinglydifferent.

Without science-based technology, we would nothave steel-framed skyscrapers, automobiles. fertilizers,artificial fibers and plastics, airplanesmuch of what wethink of as the "modern world." But even with thc rise ofscience. if there had been no coal, oil or natural gas,there would probably be no automobiles or airplanes.though there might be electricity, radios, and televisionon a small scale with a few wood-burning power sta-tions.

And without science, we could not have utilized oiland natural gas, though we might have had primitivecoal-burning steam engines. The issues of energy andscience are thus intertwined.

Rich Get Richer

One byproduct of the change brought about by scienceand energy is that the world has become much moreunequal in riches because of thc unequal spread of thechange itself. The change to a science-based technologytook place quite rapidly in most areas of North America.Europe. and Japan between 1860 and thc 1930s. withthe rise of the electrical and chemical industries and ofscience-based agriculture.

fn the tropics, however, the change took place veryslowly and is still largely confined to bigger cities. Therural people there have been affected only slightly bythe great revolution of science-based technology, whichmeans thcy are still very poor. Even worse. where suchtechnology has affected them, it may have made thcpoor poorer by cheapening the few commodities theyhave to sell and by disrupting the -folk" cultures in

26

which they live, making thcm desire expensive goodsand destroying native craft industries.

Grim Prospects

What then of the future? Will a science-based tech-nology spread throughout the tropical countries, releas-ing hundreds of millions of people from agriculture toproduce the conveniences of the modern world?

The spread of scientific knowledge and know-how isnot too difficult, if political and cultural obstacles donot bar the way. The crucial questions concern energyand materials. which are the limiting factors in gettingricher.

Even discounting inflation, it seems highly probablethat energy and materials will become constantly moreexpensive in the next 100 or 200 years. Cheap oil andnatural gas will be gone. certainly in 100 years. probablyin 50. Coal will last somewhat longer, but it has greatdisadvantages, including damage to health and the en-vironment.

Uranium and the breeder reactor can provide elec-tricity for the world for centuries, and with our presentknowledge. nuclear energy may be thc main long-runhope of the poor countries. But it. too, has many disad-vantages: it requires a high technology and an elitegroup to administer it it entails small probabilities oflarge disasters (and even small probabilities do come topass): and it poses grave danger of being used destruc-tively.

New knowledge. especially of how to utilize solarenergy, may make nuclear energy unnecessary, but wecannot be sure. At the moment, solar electricity is veryexpensive. Furthermore, electricity isnot fuel; it will notdrive airplanes and is not much good for automobiles.

Possible Solutions

Unless. therefore, there is continued expansion anduseful application of scientific knowledge. the chancesof Third World nations remaining permanently disad-vantaged are all too high.

Thc first essential for reducing this likelihood is ap-plied research in population control. With the ,Ivz billionpeople now on earth. the problem of finding adequateresources is extremely difficult. With the 8 or 10 billionpeople projected for the mid-21st century, the problemmay he impossible. Every dollar devoted to the militarylessens the amount available to balance production withpopulation needs.

Grams from the rich nations to the poor should beencouraged. but they alone cannot solve the problem.The only hope is a growing sense of world community,Imsed on two competing moral arguments One is thcnotion that the world product is a "static pie," and it triesto make those who have created riches ashamed of themso they will give the poor a "fair share."

The other argument states that all humans must work

together to solve the world's problems and to developthe technical competency of the poorer peoplesandthat is quite a different problem.

This picture, of course, is enormously oversimplified.There is no "Third World:' but a great variety ofcountries and regions with different resources and prob-lems. The oil-rich but technologically poor countriesmay invest in technological change. giving them a per-manent advantage over resource-poor countries.

Meantime, many of the really poor countries seemheaded for disaster through population expansion ona very limited resource base. For them. the majorenergy crisis at present is not oil or gas. but firewood.In the mountainous tropics, especially. from Nepal toEast Africa and to the Andes. forests are being cut downfor firewood to supply the barest needs of an ever-expanding population. The result is a loss of fertile landas tropical rains wash off the unprotected soils. themountains become irretrievably barren, the plains aresilted up.

Local Competence

As one flies across Hispaniola today, one sees the boun-dary between Haiti. in the west, and Santo Domingo asa long straight line across the island. with trees on thewest side and dry barrenness on the east. This is a %yinbol of a depressing principlethat it is hard to help

those who do not help themselves. Only competenceand realism at the local level can save people fromcatastrophe, or push them over the subtle social water-shed that leads to betterment rather than worsening.

Tragically. however, the very impact of the modernworld in technology. trade, even in aid. and still morein the psychological and political remnants of imperial-ism. both capitalist and socialist. often impairs localcompetence and capacity.

The improvement of local competence must thereforebe of highest priority. Just as there are environmentalimpact statements, there should be competence impactstatements on the impact of the modern worldthroughgovernments or corporations or international agenciesor churches or traderson the capacity of local societiesto handle their own affairs.

The great tragedy occurs when an old traditionalcompetence is destroyed, and modern competence hasnot been created to fill the gap. The catastrophic impactof the European settlers on the culture of the AmericanIndians is a case in point. This is rarely discussed, for wetend to think only in terms of material transfers orexchange.

Yet underlying all human problems is the quality andthe competence. and especially the organizational skill,of human beings themselves. Without them. all meas-ures directed towards human betterment will fail.

-,,

%M.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

KENNETH E. BOULDING is DistinguishedProfessor of Economies at the University of Coloradoat Boulder and director of the Program of Research onGeneral Social and Economic Dynamics in theuniversity's Institute of Behavioral Science. He taughtat the University of Michigan for several years beforejoining the University of Colorado faculty in 1968. Hisbooks include The Social System of the Planet Earth,The Meaning of the Twentieth Century, The Image, andA Primer on Social Dynamics,

27

32

10. Conventional Fuelsin Transition

DON E. KASH

2833

1

America is in a period of transition into its fourthenergy era- -a transition from oil and gas to other

energy sources.New energy technologies, however. are decades away

front becoming full-scale substitutes for oil and gas. It istherefore virtually certain that we will have to muddlethrough a long transition period, requiring majorchanges in our lives.

Previous energy eras in the United States were wood(1850s). coal (1880s). and oil and natural gas (1950sto the present). Earlier transitions between eras werepropelled by the twin engines of an expanding industrial-izing economy and the magnet of an attractive newenergy source. Coal was cheaper and easier to use thanwood, and so it was when oil and gas replaced coal.

Quite different and more painful forces propel thepresent transition: shortages, high costs, and unstableoil supplies, Nor is it clear what the energy sources ofthe future will be.

Without question, the nation has inadequate domesticsupplies of oil and gas to support its present level ofeconomic activity, let alone continued rapid growth.That was the message of the 1973 Arab oil boycott. amessage repeated with cessation of Iranian exports in1979.

Many Americans indict both government and indus-try for the failure to develop alternative sources ofenergy in the years between the 1973 and 1979 oil short-ages. This indictment reflects the belief that aiiernativ eenergy sources weren't developed because shortagesallow energy companies to make excess profits.--Unfortunately, the answer isnot so simple when thereare no agreed upon substitute energy sources. In thelong term, the nation must move to limitless or renew-able energy sources such as nuclear fusion or solarpower.

While these are being developed. our transition policywill rely on some combination of conservation, findingnew oil and gas. and increased use of coal. Each of theseoptions involves painful choices.

Conservation

Energy conservation can be achieved in two ways. First,and most attractive. Is more efficient use of oil and gas.In many areas. technology offers the opportunity to saveenergy. These technological advances range from m-sulated houses. to diesel cars, to more efficient manu-facturing processes.

This relatively painless approach to conservation.however, will not be adequate to meet the nation'sconservation needs. Americans must also change theirlifestyles.

To date. our willingness to live in 65 degree houses.drive 55 miles an hour, use fewer processed foods, andstop applying synthetic products to our lawns has not

been encouraging. Rather, energy shortages have con-tributed more to inflation than conservation as we havesought to maintain present lifestyles in the face ofshortage-driven escalating energy prices.

Simply stated. the need to conserve oil and gas hastriggered a struggle over who has to conserve. themiddle class or the poor. homeowners or industry Theneed to conserve is certain to create continuing socialstresses during the transition from the oil and gas cra,and those stresses are likely to be greater if we have touse rationing.

Domestic Oil and Gas

Industry advertisements note that the easily obtainedoil and gas have already been found. Already discovereddomestic oil would last us just over four years if itsupplied all our needs at the present consumption rate of68/2 billion barrels a year.

That more oil is there to Le found is agreed upon.What it will cost to find it and produce it. both economically and environmentally. is a source of disagree-ment.

Alaska and the offshore areas of the continentalUnited States are believed to offer the hest prospects fornew oil and gas, with estimates ranging from two to fivetimes the oil to be found in the inland 48 states. Butdevelopment of these prospects will be expensive, takeyears, and continue to be a source of controversy.Furthermore. it must be emphasized that domestic pros-pect:, offer no hope of being a full wbstitute for oilimports, which now make up nearly half of our dailyconsumption of 18 millioo barrels.

Foreign Supplies

lb the contrary, continued impons are critical to a stabletransition period. We. however, can have little confi-dence in the long-term reliability of oil imports Asevents in Iran in 1978-1979 emphasized. the totalworld's production capability is probably only 3 millionbarrels a day more than present consumption (approxi-mately 60 to 65 million barrels)or less than the pre-revolutionary export level of Iran of roughly 5 millionbarrels a day.

Sonic obsavers hope that both the production prob-lem and the threat of instability posed by Middle Easternpolitics will be mitigated by new discoveries in Mexicoand potential discoveries in China. However. the Mexi-can and Chinese prospects are shaky sourcesof hope foru stable transition to a new energy era.

Mexican reserves. presently estimated at 25 billionbarrels. are beirig added to every year By o poison.U.S. reserves, presently estimated at 28 billion barrels,are declining. Mexican production, however, k still only1 to 2 million barrels a day, and it will be year, beforeMexican exports can achieve a level equal to that of

29QA

prerevolutionary Iran. Further. Mexico. for politicalreasons, may not follow a policy of large-scale exports.

Chinese oil exploration and development is still in thetalking stage. Eren if large reserves are found, there isno assurance that China. any more than Mexico, willfolfew a policy of major exports.

On one point there is no major disagreement. Erenwith the most favorable situation in terms of both do-mestic disco% cries and imports. the price of oil and gaswill be high.

Limits of Coal

Coal offers the nation its clearest opportunity for anassured energy source through the transition. Domesticcoal resources are huge. easily sufficient to carry us toour solar and/or nuclear future.

But coal poses a seemingly endless number of prob-lems and challenges. We are still de% eloping techniquesand !standards for mining coal in w ii}s that minimize thedamage to the nation's land and wateraid to theminers' health.

Direct burning of coal rinses serious pollution prob-lems. Because of the impacts of air pollution on thcenvironment and human health, the !,o% ernment re-quires the use of cleanup technologies by electric utilitiesand large-scale users before much of the nation's coal

can be burned. Major differences exist o%er the ade-quacy and need for such cleanup technologies as thestack gas scrubbers. which take sulfur dioxide out ofpower plant smoke. No one. however. disagrees thatscrubber., increase the cost of energy.

Management of pollution is only one of the barriers tosubstituting coal for oil and gas. Better than half thehomes in America hare gas furnaces. With minuscule..xceptions. our whole transportation system requiresgasoline or fuel oil, Coal can hope to meet these needsonly if it is converted to gaseous or liquid energy formsAlthough they exist in other countries. not a singlecommercial coal eons ersion facility is operating in theUnited States.

In his TV address to the nation following the CampDavid policy review in July 1979, President Carterproposed a major coal synthetics program. E% en were itto lead to the proposed production of 2' .1 million barrelsof synthetic oil by 1990at a capital cost of o%er S I 00billionthis inasske effort would meet less than 15percent of our present daily use of oil.

The transition period we are entering w ill thus requiremajor changes in indi% idual as well as social and eco-nomic beim% jar. We Jre clearly faced with the kinds ofdifficult choices all societies would rather duck. butducking is no longer an a% tillable option.

_...milL...

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DON E. KASH is George Lynn Cross Professor ofPolitical Science and director of the Science and PublicPolicy Program at the University of Oklahoma. wherehe joined the faculty in 1970 after teaching. at PurdueUniversity. He is thc author of The Politics of SpaceCooperation and coauthor of Our Energy Future: TheRole of Research, Development. and Demon.stradon inReaching a National Consensus on Energy Supply;Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis; NorthSea Oil and Gas; and Energy Under the Oceans.

30

<

It is now almost 40 years since the first nuclear chainreactor was created by Enrico Fermi in Chicago.If we judge from the statistics-68 nuclear reactors

supplying 12.5 percent of our electricity in 1978, 200commercial power reactors in the rest of the world, andmore than 200 reactors powering British, French. So-viet, and American naval vesselsnuclear power isnow a great success.

But nuclear power is embroiled in a bitter debatethat pits those who believe nuclear power is too danger-ous against those who insist it can be safely controlled.

I have referred to nuclear power as a "Faustian bar-gain." Like the legendary Faust, who bargained formagical powers. we must pay a price for our power.Nuclear power. produced by the socalled breeder re-actor that creates more fuel than it uses. confers onmankind an inexhaustible energy source. In return.however. mankind must exert continuing N igilance andattention to detail in handling the nuclear system so as toavoid harm.

Each 1000 megawatt nuclear plant can replace anoil-fired plant that burns 8 million barrels of oil per yearor a coal-fired plant that burns 2.5 million tons of coalper year. Were we to replace the 300 nuclear plantsoriginally planned for operation by 2000 A.D. withcoal-powered plants, we might have to dig an addi-tional 750 million tons of coal annually: if with oil, wewould have to import an additional 250(1 million barrelsof oil each year.

With the woi id in an energy crisis. there is the strong-est in.:ntive to use and to expand nuclear energy.

Secure Sites

But there are potential problems that center on thedangers of intense radioactivity generated in a nuclearpower plant. and on the possibility that plutoniumproduced in a reactor can be used to make nuclearbombsthe proliferation issue.

The possibility of terrorist attack on a nuclear plantor of clandestine diversion of nuclear material mustbe guarded against. This means that nuclear facilitieswill always require heavy security.

Such security can best be provided by clustering ournuclear plants in perhaps 100 heavily guarded, expertlymanned centers throughout the nation rather thandispersing them as we have for fossil fuel power sta-tions. Most of the existing nuclear sites could grow intosuch centers. They would be large. permanent. andlargely sclf-contained.

The security demanded at such sites is a small price topay for an enormous. new energy source. Moreover. ifthe sites are permanently dedicated to nuclear activi-ties. both the low-level radioactive wastes and the rcactors themselves, after 40 years of operationthepredicted period for which they would be sell iceablecould be kept where they are until most of their radio-

31

activity has decayed. The hazards as3ociated with ourcurrent practice of transporting radioactive materialsaway from the site would thus be greatly reduced.

Radioactive Wastes

The other concern regards radioactivity in a reactor. Atypical. one millioi kilowatt plant contains about 15billion curies of radioactivityabout equal to the radio-activity due to the uranium naturally dissolved in all theoceans of the world. After a reactor is shut down, thisradioactivity continues to generate heat that dies arraygradually over set oral weeks, the reactor must thereforestill be cooled. Eventually the remaining radioactivitymust be isolated permanently.

Only about 50 cubic feet of high-level radioactivewastes are created each year by a large reactor if thewastes are chemically reprocessedsomewhat more ifthc spent uranium-bearing fuel is isolated unprocessed.Because the volume is small, most experts who havestudied the matter believe that foolproof schemes fordisposing of these wastes deep in the earth can bedevised.

Yet. it is hard to convince people that even the expertscan know much about containing man-made materialsinside the earth for periods of 1000 years or more. Bythat time the wastes would be no more hazardous thanthe uranium originally dug out of the ground.

In seeking foolproof schemes. we are not asking theimpossible. President Carter's task force on radioactivewastes concluded, "Successful isolation of radioactivewastes from the biosphere appears technically feasiblefor periods of thousands of years. ."

The technical arguments are reinforced by a study ofancient man-made artifacts. In the Ekain cavesnear SanSebastian. Spain. there are paintings of horses, many insuperb condition, made by Cro-Magnons 12,000 yearsago. If thc artifacts of Cro-Magnon man could sun it einadvertently in the earth this long, is it not reasonableto suppose that our geologists and ceramists and chemi-cal engineers can do at least as well with radioactivewastes?

In Gabon, Africa, there is a uranium mine in whichnatural nuclear reactors operated 2 billion years ago.Several tons of plutonium and billions of curies of radio-activity were formed. Yet the plutonium. and much.though not all, of the radioactivity remained immobihied. lithe earth can locally contain radioactit it) so wellby chance. cannot modern technologists do better?

To be sure. the isolated wastes will require surveil-lancebut the surveillance would be minimal. a fewpeople checking on the closed repository maximally tomake certain the site is undisturbed.

Reactor Accidents

Properly operating reactors pose a smaller insult to theenvironment than do coal -fired boilers. They emit no

3 7

carbon dioxide and therefore create no long-rangethreat to the earth's climate.

On the other hand, as the Three Mile Island accidentdemonstrated, should a reactor lose its coolant. it couldoverheat and release some of its radioactivity to theenvironment. In this respect a nuclear reactor is like alarge dam: a dam, when properly operating, is a benignsource of energy. Should the dam fail, land is floodedand people are drowned.

Until the Three Mile Island accident, we in the nuclearcommunity were confident that the probability of suchan accident was very small. After all, the world's pres-surized waver reactors had operated for 500 reactoryears without an accident that harmed the public. To thisone must add more than 1000 reactor years of operationby the nuclear navy.

Three Mile Island has shaken this belief. Althoughno one was hurt, it the probability of such accidents isno lower than 1 in 500 reactor years, the public willprobably not accept nuclear energy. The future, indeedthe survival, of nuclear power requires us to do better.As the Kemeny Commission that investigated ThreeMile Island put it. "The legacy of TMI is the need forchange."

An Acceptable Nuclear Future

Can we design an acceptable nuclear future. one in

which the accident probability is much lower than this'Of course we must, and will. correct the technical de-ficiencies revealed by the accident.

But equally important, and as suggested by Kemeny,we must have more expert operation and isolated sites.We should confine all reactors to relatively few perma-nent sites, which would be operated by an elite corps ofprofessionals, each as highly selected and trained aspilots of sophisticated jet aircraft.

Beyond this the public will have to place the radiationhazard in better perspective. We must realize that we arebathed in a perpetual sea of radiation to which life hasadapted. Unless the public (and the media) acceptsexposure to radiationeven the remote possibility ofexposure to dangerous levelsin the same spirit that itaccepts exposure to other industrial pollutants, there islittle chance of our enjoying the benefits of plentifulnuclear energy over the long run.

Can we redeem the Faustian bargain, even la didGoethe's Faust, whose soul was finally saved?

It was human fallibility that got us into trouble atThree Mile Island, but it was human ingenuity thatlimited the damage. An acceptable nuclear future istherefore possible. Three Mile Island may have given usthe incentive to reexamine the terms of the bargain. andto make the changes necessary for an acceptable nuclearfuture.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ALVIN M. WEINBERG has been director ofOak Ridge Associated Universities' Institute forEnergy Analysis, which he helped to establish , since1975. Following his retirement in 1973 as director ofOak Ridge National Laboratory. a position he held formore than a quarter century, he served for one year asdirector of the Federal Energy Administration's Officeof Energy Research and Development. The originatorof the nuclear pressurized water reactor. he proposedits use for submarine propulsion in 1944. He hasreceived many awards for his contributions to thetheory and development of nuclear reactors, includingthe 1960 Moms for Peace Award and the AtomicEnergy Commission's E. 0. Lawrence MemorialAward.

33 38

6E tc

>11:IV10 NOSIIM

sePolougoeialepdaiddvpug AbJeu3 Jeios z [

The international oil crisis is worsening, and safetyand environmental problems plague the develop-

ment of such energy sources as nuclear fission and coal.The rapid development of renewable. efficient energysupplies through harnessing the sun is therefore 'pick!)becoming an important national priority.

Unlike the centralized energy sources of today, thedevelopment of clean, more localized energies basedon the sun offers the potential of a society free fromterrorist threats at nuclear plants, environmental degra-dation from the exploration and development of theearth's fossil fuels, and the Damocles' sword of nuclearpower development.

With a major national commitment. we can buildtowards a new solar age while making the energy facili-ties and use patterns of today more efficient. Conserva-tion of energy is important, but we must accelerate theuse of renewable energy.

Today, the only major renewable energy source ishydroelectric power, triggered by the sun's effect onthe world's water cycles. Hydroelectric dams supply 4percent of the nation's energy, but finding new sites willlimit the potential of this resource. Looming in thefuture, however, are other more direct uses of the sun'senergy.

There are two basic ways to utilize solar energyin buildings: through the installation of "active" solarcollectors, which trap and store heat, and throughthe -passive" design of buildings to niaximize the useof natural sunlight and other climate-related energyfactors.

Passive Solar Design

Harnessing the sun's energy through passive designs hasbeen the hallmark of good architecture for centuries.Greek and Roman buddings faced the sun to gatherheat ; medieval castles were often built to store heat ingreat masses of stone; tropical structures are built withthatch and airy breezeways to deflect solar heat: hams innortherly climes are built with sloping, south-facingroofs to catch solar heat and deflect winter snows.

Today. the lesson of passise solar designneglectedsince the introduction of cheap energy. home air-conditioners and compact central heating systenis arconce again being learned. Proven passive solar tech-niques for new homes and buildings utilize the mass ofthick walls, rocks, and storage desires to store solar heatcaptured by a building and its windows for later use.New structures mt,, be specifically designed to incorpo-rate large south-facing windows. as well as special v e nti-lam n techniques to cool structures in summer.

Onc award-winning builder. it Sasell. has usedfive-inch wails of concrete and foam insulation to pro-vide excellent cooling qualities in hot climates. His in-sulating cocoon has reduced energy requirements by 60percent in test homes. Such superinsulation will tin-

doubted!) prose popular as consumers recognize sub-stantial energy savings at low cost.

Active Collectors

The active approach to solar energy, which uses specialcollectors to trap heat and storage devices to save it forlater use, is also rapidly growing.

Early in this century, a sub..antial market for solarcollectors developed in California and Florida. but theadvent of cheap fossil fuels and electricity curtailed thesolar demand. As late as 1951, however, there were50,000 solar water heaters in Miami.

Today, solar water heating is catching on again,. andnationally, the industry may reach $20 billion by the endof the 1980s. Solar space heating and air-conditioningtechnologies are also being developed and marketed forhomes, commercial buildings, and industry.

The most familiar type of solar collector consists ofa dark metal surface covered with copper tubes fortransferring a liquid, enclosed in a glass-covered box.Until recently, this was the only widely available com-mercial solar technology. Now, more than 100 U.S.manufacturers produce a dazzling variety of designs,such as flat plate collectors covered with plastic glazing:collectors that have tracking devices to "follow" thesun; and evacuated tube collectors that trap heat in glassvacuum tubes.

For many household uses, simple flat-plate collectorscan provide hot watcr and space heating, but for moresophisticated applicationssuch as providing heat over200°F for the operation of refrigeration or industrialheating equipment concentrating and tracking collec-tors are preferred.

Today's solar hot water heaters cost from $1,500 to$4,000 for household installations, and upwards of$10,000 for more sophisticated systems. As technolo-gies improve in the 1980s, costsdiscounting infla-tionare expected to decline.

Pbotovoltaics

A currently expensive. yet very promising, solar tech-nology that is utilized on spacecraft involves photo-voltaic:, whereby tiny cells (similar to the silicon semi-conductor chips used in pocket calculators) convert10-20 percent of the sunlight striking their surface intodirect-current electricity.

Tile most common type of photovoltaic cell. the sili-con cell, now costs $8410 per watt of generating ca-pacity, when arranged in special power-generating ar-rays. Yet a reduction in cost to$1-$2 per "peak" watt isexpected within the next few years, as modern manu-facturing techniques and new technologies for produc-ing the silicon raw materials are introduced.

Photosoltaies today are used mostly for remote powerapplications. such as Coast Guard nav igational markersHowever, some producers report t, it village sized

35

40

power systems around the world that now use dieselgenerators are finding photovoltaic systems an economicreplacement.

Other large -scale solar technologies include "powertowers." Special reflector mirrors, called heliostats. con-centrate sunlight a thousand-fold to generate steam in atower-mounted boiler, which in turn is connected to aconventional electric turbogenerator.

The "solar pond," another large-scale technology.makes useof special brine ponds, which trap heat at hightemperatures that can be used for electricity conversion.Developed in Israel, it is now being considered forCalifornia's man-made Salton Sea, south of Los An-geles. The Salton Sea project would be the world'slargest singh solar project, producing over 600.000kilowatts of economic, pollution-free solar electricity.enough to supply a half-million people.

Wind Power

Another solar-derived technology that promises wide-spread application as well as low cost is wind power.Wind electricity is the least expensive form of solarenergy today, and a recent study by SRI International,a technology consulting firm, indicates that wind powercould supply 80,000 megawatts of electricity, equiva-lent to 80 large nuclear or coal plants. by the turn of thecentury.

To date, several large w ind generators have been builtby the federal government. and at least one electricutility, the Southern California Edison Co.. has initiated

a private test program. Until recently. the government'sefforts have focused on gargantuan machineseachhaving rotor blades up to 300 feet in spread. Recentresearch shows., however, that smaller machines (1,000kilowatt. 100-200 foot blades) linked together in favor-able areas may be the best, most economic answer to theenergy problem.

Since wind generators are relatively simple, they canbe manufactured in large quantities at low cost andinstalled at favorable sites. The World MeteorologicalOrganization estimates that 20 million megawatts ofwind t ectricity can be harnessed on a global basis.

Solar energy is also stored in biomass. or plant matter.that can be converted into liquid and gaseous fuels toreplace petroleum and natural gas. The goal is tanta-lizingthe energy stored in biomass is estimated to be10 to 40 times the current annual human use of fossilfuels.

The conservation economy and the solar transitionare not radical. impossible steps for our civilization.Using energy efficiently and increasing the use of solarenergy will have dramatic, positive effects on the U.S.economy. Decentralized, community approaches tosolving energy problems encourage the developmentof new jobs. and solar energy will reduce the need forinflationary imports of non-renewable fuels.

What is needed is a major national commitment tothis goal. The full cooperation of industry. labor unions.citizens and government can make the &cal.- of anenergy-efficient solar age into a reality.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

WILSON CLARK has been on the staff ofCalifornia Governor Edmund G. Brown. Jr., since1976. He is Assistant to the Governor for Issues andPlanning and advisor on energy. economics. and theenvironment. He is also codirector of theEnvironmental Policy Institute and energy-policycoordinator for the Environmental Policy Center inWashington. D.C. He is the author of American Landand Rural Resources; Energy for Survival: TheAlternative to Extinction; and U.S. Energy Policy:Sllected Environmental and Social Policy Issues.

36 4.1

13. Making Our Own:Synthetic Fuels

JOHN H. GIBBONS and WILLIAM UPTON CHANDLER

37 .12

Gusoholten percent alcohol and ninety percentgasolineis one of the synthetic fuels that have

intoxicated the imagination of sonic W ho worry aboutenergy. Subst iluting alcohol and other synt hetic fuels forgasoline could help relieve the problems of dwindlingdomestic and uncertain imported oil supplies.

To promote "synfuels." the U.S. government mayspend tens of billions of dollars. But to do so withoutconsidering the enormous economic and environmentalcosts would be a mistake. Indeed, the cost of synfuelsmay be so high that conservation. including governmentsubsidies for retooling industry. will be a far betterinvestment for al least the next decade.

The excitement surrounding synfuels is understand-able. Seventy-five percent of the energy we use todayis derived from crude oil and natural gas. and the fuelswe use are mostly liquids and gases.

Solid fuels like coal will be restricted in usefulnessunless they can be liquefied or gasified. especially forTransportation uses. Even increasing the use of solidfuels in making electricity will not solve our problemsunless, of course, the electric cur can be perfectedbecause only len percent of the energy used by con-sumers is in the form of electricity.

Thus, with the oil and gas shortage, many personshave become convinced that we must have syntheticfuels now al any price.

The Methane Scenario

Creating fuels from biomassplant matter and animalwastescould be the cheapest option for making syn-thetic fuels. Wood and crop residues, for example. canbe converted to either liquid alcohol or methane gas.the principal component of natural gas.

Like all of our commonly used fuels, natural gasconsists of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Naturally-occurring methane gas was produced by the pressureand heat of the earth breaking down the complex mole-cules of buried plants and animals. This process, de-structive distillation. can be replicated in gasificationplants in which wood or any suitable hydrogen-carboncompound is subjected to heat and pressure.

Gas can also be produced by using certain bacteria to"digest" biomass in the absence of air. In either ease,large-scale production of .synthetic gas from biomasscurrently costs several limes as much as natural gas.

Alcohol liquids may be produced from biomass usingcommon dislillal ion techniques. Biological materials arefermented by the addition of yeast, and then ethylalcohol is distilled from the "soup."

Pure alcohol cannot be used in cars without majorengine alterations, but alcohol (up to about 15 percent)blended with gasoline can be burned without any enginemodification. Some gasohol is being produced and mar-keted today. The alcohol fraction is subsidized by the

38

government to about $ .40 per gallon, and is competitiv efor this reason.

Synthetic gas is also being marketed today in veryanion quantities. In the Midwest. gas made from stock-yard manure is delivered through natural gas pipelinesto Chicago consumers. The cost is low because theresource is free. though limited.

In terms of the environment. biomass-derived fuelscould be either benign or catastrophic because re mov ingwood and crop residues from soil reduces its fertility.The amount of residue which may be removed safelyvaries by soil type and must be studied carefully.

Oil Shale

Oil shale is another possible source of fuel. Enormousquantities of liquid kerogen, a substance similar to oil,are trapped in the pores of shale rock in Utah and Colo-rado. Retorting, or heating, shale frees the kerogen.which may be converted into substitutes for gasoline.diesel. fuel oil, and the like.

The problems of producing oil from shale, however,make us question its feasibility. One problem is that oilshale is more shale than oil. Mining and retorting eachion of shale rock produces only 25 to 35 gallons of oil.

A second problem is That up to 5 barrels of water arcrequired to produce and refine a barrel of shale oil Thealready grim shortage of water in the oil shale regions ofarid Utah and Colorado may strictly limit shale oilproduction.

Still another difficulty is that the technology of pro-ducing oil from shale is not well advanced, and only afew small planes have been constructed. There is alsoi he potential for polluting water and air with the poison-ous and cancer-causing materials that are present inshale.

Coal Gasification

Coal, like biomass. can be converted readily to a liquidor to methane gas. But even under the best circum-stances. coal conscrvion "wastes" about one-third ofthe potential energy in the coal. This fuel loss, coupledwith the high price of conversion equipment. makes theprice of synfuels high.

Coal liquids can be produced by a number of pro-cesses. including the Fischer-Tropsch process used inNazi Germany to produce synthetic fuel from coal. Theprocess produces gasoline and many other compoundsby first gasifying coal and then synthesizing the gasesinto liquids.

Alternatively, methyl alcohol may be produced fromcoal. Whatever fuel is made., however, the cost is high.Oil from coal may cost $50 or more per barrel, com-pared with an average $22 per barrel for oil in 1979

Coal production already demands a high price inhuman terms, as well. Families who live near strip minessuffer thousands of dollars of damages to their homes

43

1

1

from blasting, landslides, and flooding. The a;ons suf-fered by underground miners who get lung oiscase isreflected in the cost of health cart and benefits toameliorate this problem. one billion do:lars each year.And two hundred miners die in the mines each year.These human costs conceivably could be doubled by amajor coal-based synthetic fuels program.

Costs of Synfuels

The U.S. government may spend approximately $90billionthe amount requested by President Carterover the next few years to develop synthetic fuels. Thchoped-for benefits would be about 1.5 million barrels ofsynthetic oil per day by 1955, or about 10 tanks ofgasoline per car per year if all the product went intoautomobile fuel production. Thc synthetic gasolinewould cost at least $2 per gallon in addition to the $400per person needed for the $90 billion start-up cost.

How would synfuels compare with conservation insolving our energy problems? Cars can be built to savehalf the fuel they use at little extra total cost. Theamount of energy that could be -produced" by doublingthe mileage obtained by all American cars by 1990would amount to 2.5 million barrels per day. about 15tanks of gasoline per car per year.

Even greater savings are possible without reductionsin safety or comfort. But achicv ing this conservationgoal for automobiles would require government sub-sidies to accelerate retooling our auto industry. Such aninvestment, howcvcr< would be more effective than a farmore expensive investment in synfuels.

At some point we will need a large synthetic fuelsindustry: **When" is largely a matter of the cost ofsynfuels relative to conventional fuels. A logical energyplan might begin by immediately developing and addingto our gas supply the unconventional natural gas that istoo expensive to produce under price controls. Later,gas from biomass and coal could be added. The existinggas pipeline system can serve three-fourths of all Ameri-cans. and gas can be put to almost any use. includingoperating vehicles.

Liquid synfuel production then could be started in afew years by building a few full-scale plants to gainpractical experience with processes using various hydro-carbon resources. Major production commitmentsshould await the experience of these "pioneer plants."

Such an energy future might be the least costly interms of total costs. and could be reached in an orderlyfashion.

39

44

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

JOHN H. GIBBONS is Director of the Officeof Technology Assessment. From 1974 to 1979, he wasprofessor of physics and director of the University ofTennessee Environment Center. From 1954 to 1973, hewas at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and in 1973 hebecame director of the Office of Energy Conservationfor the Federal Energy Administration.

WILLIAM UPTON CHANDLER is aconsultant to the energy program of the Office ofTechnology Assessment. He previously was a seniorresearch associate at the University ofTennesseeEnergy, Environment, and Resources Center.

40

14. More Through Less:Effective Energy Use

DENIS HAYES

41

16

The oil we Americans now devour at the rate of onemillion barrels every ninety minutes was formed

over millions of years and is composed of the leftoverfood of that prime example of immoderate growththe dinosaur. Rather than learning from history's mis-takes, we have been burning the evidence.

In 1975, Americans wasted more fossil fuel than wasused by two-thirds of the world's population. We annu-ally consume twice as much fuel as we need : , maintainour standard of living.

We could lead lives as rich, healthy. and fulfillingwith as much comfort.. and with more employmentusing half the energy now used. Continuation of ourcurrent wasteful course is spherically senseless: itdoesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.

Resources are frequently estimated in terms of yearsleft until ssorld production will "peak" and begin todecline. Despite recent oil discoveries in Mexico, manyauthorities believe that worldwide oil production willpeak within the next decade.

Since 1973, growth in world oil output has not keptpace with growth in world population. Per capita oilproduction has fallen from 5.34 barrels per person in1973 to 5.20 barrels per person in 1978. If the govern-ment of Saudi Arabia were to decide it would ratherhave oil in the ground than paper money in the bank. percapita world oil production might never again reach the1973 level.

Barriers to Growth

Growth in energy usage is constrained by factors otherthan the scarcity of certain principal fuels. Long beforeall the earth's coal has been burned, for example. theburning of coal could be halted clue to climatic changescaused by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atnios-phere.

In several states, nuclear power has already beeneffectively stopped by mounting public concern oversafety. waste disposal. weapons proliferation. and con-struction costs of nuclear plants. The dramatic reactoraccident in March. 1979 at Three Mile Island in Penn-sylvania strengthened the anti-nuclear tide.

Such barriers to endless energy growth cause greatconsternation among those who believe that economicwell-being requires continual growth in energy usage.Political exhortations for energy conservation have thusoften taken the form of calls for sacrifice. as thoughthrifty energy use were oppressive. Nothing could hefurther from the truth.

Benefits from Conservation

A comprehensive program of energy conservation initi-ated today will yield vast benefits. h will env e ourdescendants to share in the earth's finite stock of fossilfuels. It will allow a portion of the world's petroleum

42

to be used for drugs, lubricants. and other non-energypurposes.

An enlightened program of energy conservation willsubstantially bolster employment levels. Capital di-verted from nuclear. coal gcsification plants, and newpetroleum refineries to investments in conservationwill save more energy per dollar than the productionfacilities could produce, and create more jobs.

A strong energy consenation program will allow usto minimize the environmental degradation associatedwith all current energy conversion technologies. Andthe security of a modest energy budget is more easilyassured than that o fan enormous one that depends upona far-flung network of sources.

But what will energy conservation mean for thattouchstone of public policy: the economy? Is it true, asis apparently believed by some economists ;tnd manymembers of the public at large. that a reiningin of ourenergy growthhowever attractive it might be froman environmental. consumer, or labor perspectivewould damage the economy?

Energy and the Economy

Comparisons between countncs and between differentfacilities in the same country demonstrate that reducingfuel consumption need not reduce economic output.Consumption can be cut back by using more fuel-efficient industrial machinery.

A recent study by the Mellon Energy Institute con-cluded that an investment of more than $200 billion inincreasing the energy efficiency of U.S. buildings, indus-tries, and transportation would save more energy thanthe same expenditure on new energy facilities wouldproduce.

For the past several decades. the amount 01 fuel con-sumed per dollar's worth of goods and services hasfallendespite declining real energy priers. Withrising energy prices a near-certainty in the future, thistrend could accelerate dramatically.

A recent exhaustive study. A Low Energy Strategy forthe Untied Kingdom, concluded that Great Britain couldtriple her Gross National Product during the next 50years and still require less energy in 2025 than thatcountry uses today.

Opportunities for energy savings in thi. United Statesarc much greater than in Britain. Per capita energy con-sumption in the U.K. is only 45 percent as high as inAmerica, and only 75 percent as much energy is usedthere per dollar of Gross National Product. lithe Britishare wastrels. we Americans are downright gluttons.

Industrial Savings

Industry currently consumes about 40 percent of U Senergy, and the opportunities for increased efficiency

abound. Many companies have accomplished majorenergy savings simply by eliminating waste f.. ex-ample, by repairing broken windows and closing factorydoors during the winter.

The largest future opportunities for fuel savings, how-ever, will require more sophistication. Devices such asrecuperators, regenerators, and heat pipes, for ex-ample, help conserve the heat generated in industrialplantsheat that would otherwise be used once anddischarged, or removed directly with the flue gaseswithout naving been used at all.

At present, electricity purchased mainly from large,centralized power plants, fulfills much of industry's en-ergy demand. The average efficiency of Americanpower plants is about 30 percent; 70 percent of theenergy originally contained in the fuel they use is dis-charged into the environment as low-grade heat. Butfactories have ...any needs for low-grade heat. needsthey now meet by burning high-grade fuels. If electricalgeneration took place inside factories instead of at ;e-mote power plants, the waste heat could be efficientlycascaded through multiple uses.

Investments for such "industrial co- generation" re-quire far less capital and fuel per unit of electricityproduced than do investments in new centralized powerplants.

Transportation Policy

Transportation ranks second, ,after industry. in energyconsumption. It accounts for about 25 percent of U.S.energy end-use. Shifting goods wherever possible from

trucks and airplanes to trains, ships. and pipelinescould significantly increase the energy efficiency oftransport.

At the center of any sensible transportation policymust be a new approach to personal mobility. Currentlegislation requires a fleet average of 27.5 miles pergallon for new automobiles by 1985. This is a step in theright direction. The next steps include much greatermileage increases, the design of post-petroleum ve-hicles, and the establishment of land use patterns thatdiminish the need for personal transportation.

Enormous opportunities for energy conservation alsoexist in both old and new buildings. Weatherstripping,insulation, storm doors, thermopane windows, sensibleuse of curtains and overhangs, time-of-day thermostats,more efficient furnaces, solar collectorsto name afew can lower conventional fuel requirements forspace conditioning and water heating by 50 percent ormore. No new building permits should be issued forstructures that don't incorporate at least passive solardesign features, such as windows properly placed forheating and cooling efficiency.

The President's Council on Environmental Qualitynoted in 1979 that. "Achieving low energy growth willnot be easy or cheap. but it will be easier and less costlythan achieving high energy growth." It is not too late toretrace our steps before we collide with inevitable boun-daries on energy growth and consumption. But thelonger we wait to begin a true national commitment toenergy conservation. the more tumultuous the eventualturnaround is likely to be.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DENIS HAYES became Executive Director ofthe Solar Energy Research Institute (Golden.Colorado). which provides information for theDepartment of Energy and serves as an informationalclearinghouse on solar energy. in 1979. He previouslywas a Senior Researcher with Worldwatch Institute inWashington. D.C., a private, nonprofit researchorganization devoted to the analysis of global issues.Chairman of the national Sun Day observance in 1978.Hayes was founder and head of Environmental Action.a public-interest lobby. He is author of Rays of Hope:The Transition to a Post-Petroleum World, and of

4111numerous papers for Worldwatch and for suchpublications as Saturday Review and The New YorkTimes.

43 4

15. Choosing Our Future:Choices and Tradeoffs

MELVIN KRANZBERG

44 49

Technolog)'s the answerbut that's not the ques-tion.

The question is which technology (or technologies)will resolve our energy dilemma. And underlying thatare more basic questions. What do we want our lives tobe like in the future? What do we owe to future genera-tions? What are our responsibilities to our fellow inhabi-tants on Spaceship Earth?

The energy choices we make today will affect not onlyour own lives, values, and institutions. but also thenatural environment, the resources and lifestyles ofgenerations to come, and ultimately all the earth'speople.

Understandably, we don't want to change our life-styles. Most Americans are happy with the materialgoods that industrial technology has brought, and wefear a decline in our living standards. Yet the cheapenergy that fueled America's material growth in the pastwill no longer be available. What canor shouldwedo about it?

In the short run--for the next decade or sowe willrely chiefly on conservation to fill the gap betweenenergy supply and demand; in the longer run we willcount on a "technological fix" to provide us with abun-dant (if not necessarily cheap) energy. Both of thesesolutions hold forth promisesand problems.

Conservation and its Limits

Conservation would be commonsensical from an eco-nomic and ethical perspective even if we had no energycrisis. We Amencans waste too much of everything.from food to fuel.

For individuals, conservation offers savings on fuelbills, and, if we walk rather than drive. better health. Forthe nation. conservation would lessen our dependenceon costly foreign oil, which contributes to inflation.

Although some conservation might be a -good thing."too much might wreak economic and social disaster.While the loss of Iranian oil imports in 1979 incon-venienced some drivers, then: was little decline in ourliving standards.

But suppose additional millions of barrels of importedoil were cut off ' mployment would rise as factoriesshut down heeause of lack of fuel or a transportationbreakdown, agricultural production would dip. affect-mg food supplies. public health would suffer from inade-quate home heating, and the economy would graduallygrind to a halt as vital services shut down.

New Energy Sources

In brief. conservation by aselfhowexer desirable andnecessaryis not enough to maintain our socioeco-nomic order and ensure the future. We must also de-velop new 4. ncro sources through a -technological lix."that is. the application of more and better technology.

45

Because these technologies take time to develop, theyrepresent longer-range solutions to our energy problem.

How do we choose among the technologies that will"fix" our situation? What benefits do they offer andw hat risks are involved? What tradeoffs must be made inthe way we he in order to obtain or retain other thingswhich we value? For values are implicit in our choicesof our energy future.

For example. we might get more oil from offshorewells, but offshore drilling risks oil spills and environ-mental damage. We have plenty of coal, but mining itimposes danger to the miners and degradation to theenvironment, and burning it creates pollution.

Synthetic fuelsoil and gas made from coal, tarsands, and shalepresent the same problems as miningcoal. In addition, they release more carbon dioxide intothe atmosphere than the direct burning ofecial, and thusincrease the possibility of a "greenhouse effect"warming the earth's climate through absorbed infraredradiation.

Nuclear energy once promised unlimited, cheap en-ergy. But there are doubts about reactor safety, radia-tion. and nuclear waste disposal. The Three Mile Islanda,eident and the subsequent investigation set back thenuclear cause. Yet further nuclear development mightbe necessary if we want sufficient energy to maintain ourlifestyles.

Solar cncrgy has many attractions but technical prob.!ems hinder its large-scale production and storage, de-spite its suitability for hot water and home heating, itcould not be expected to power America's industrialplant.

Exert ardent proponents of solar energy project itssupplying us with only 20 percent of our energy by theyear 2000. The other -soft paths"geothermal andwindcould provide only a minuscule portion of ourenergy needs.

Difficult Choices

Even if we try many different energy paths. we must stilldecide which will make the most effective use of ourscientific research dollars and talent. Anti those deci-sions must be based not only on technical feasibility butalso upon how and where we want to live.

Thus. solar energy proponents claim it would get us"back to the land." and they exalt a simpler lifestyle.others equate the "simple life" with a loner lasingstandard. Americans tired of the rural li fe ov er a centurytwo; moving to the cities. they created today's urban-ized, industrial society.

Are we wiping to do without our wealth of materialgoods and go back to the "simple" life of the farm?Might not many Americans prefer the risks of. say.nuclear energy rather than forgo the amenities and ex-citement of the big city?

59

All energy paths have disbenefits as well as benefits.which are often difficult to assess. Even the "experts"can't always measure the risks precisely. Besides, therisks might be assigned to one group, such as Appala-chian coal-miners, while others. such as Eastern urbandwellers who use the energy produced by coal, derivethe benefits.

There is also the question of voluntary t ersus intolun-tary risk. The National Academy of Sciences estimatesthat radiation from nuclear plants might cause a total of2.000 cancer deaths by the year 2000, whereas altnost50.000 people a year die on our highways. Yet w c volun-tarily drive our cars and risk a fatal accident.

We don't always have a choice in the case of energysources. True, we decide whether or not to switch onthe electric light. others decide just how that elec-tricity will be generated. Up till now, such decisions hateusually been left to the marketplace, but increasinglysociety, through the political process, will be determin-ing our energy future.

The Role of the Citizen

Because energy is so crucial to the nation's economy andwell-being, the government must be concerned aboutit. In most places, the generation and distribution ofelectricity and natural gas are a monopoly, so thesepublic utilities must be regulated for the public good.

And our petroleum supply increasingly depends uponthe government's conduct of foreign relations.

Furthermore, future energy resources will dependheavily on the got ernment for research dollars, pilotp!an ts, and tax incentivesand will be constrained bygovernmental action to protect the environment and thepublic's health. Thus. it is within our power as citizens todeterminc where the government should apply its cffortsto bring us the energy future we want.

Throughout our history, concerned citizens havebrought about major transformations of American pol-icy. In energy matters, determined citizens have haltedor delayed the construction of nuclear plants, oil re-fineries, and pipelines.

In the last analysis. therefore, our energy future is upto each of us.

Do we have the courage to make some difficultchoices? Or. have we become a nation of materialistichedonists, as some critics say, unwilling to forgo ourmaterial comforts regardless of the effects upon others?

Is this a crisis of the national will?If so, there are some grounds for confidence. Despite

recent strains, we remain the world's strongest democ-racy, and we shall retain our scientific preeminence. Ifwe put our will to the test, we should be able to surmountthe current energy crisis just as have overcomeprevious national crises.

:"!

r,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MELVIN KRANZBERG is academiccoordinator for "Energy and the Way We Live." Since1972, he has been Callaway Professor of the History ofTechnology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Hepreviously taught for twenty years at Case Institute ofTechnology (now Case Western Reserve University).The principal founder of the Society for the History ofTechnology, he edits its quarterly journal. Technologyand Culture. He is the coauthor of By the Sweat of ThyBrow and coeditor of Technology in WesternCivilization: Technology and Culture: An Anthology::Hid Technological Innovation: A Critical Review ofCurrent Knowledge.

46 Si