Editorial comment

	Vol. 230 No.9
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

An energy plan for the future—now

For most of my professional life, I’ve been trying to get a grasp on just how much energy the world will need in the next 30 years and, more importantly, beyond. It’s glaringly obvious that the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) will play an increasingly prominent role in the future global energy picture; that has already begun. At the core of global energy growth is the success of free (-er?) markets, combined with a consumer ethos and the resulting throwaway consumption. Basically, the developing world wants all of the “stuff” that the rich countries have, and they want it now. And who can blame them?

So what if everyone in the world were to get their wish (as they inevitably will) and suddenly consume energy at the rate that the US does?  Just how much energy is that? Well, in simple numbers, the US uses about 8,000 energy units (eu) per person per year, while the average inhabitant of planet Earth uses about 1,800. (It’s unimportant, but here, an eu equals a kboe.) But numbers don’t always communicate the full scope of the problem. So try and visualize the following.

The Earth’ population is about 7 billion. Applying the US per capita energy rate to the present population, it would be the equivalent of an Earth filled with 31 billion people using today’s global per person energy rate. I’m trying to get my head around 31 billion people: That’s a lot of energy, not to mention energy-related road and building materials, water,  sewage and so on.

The latest forecasts from the Paris-based IEA and the US EIA regarding “oil” production over the next 20 years are doable, calling for annual growth in hydrocarbon liquids to be near 1% per year, more or less. But that also implies that those liquids will be more expensive, either through higher taxes, tighter supply, or both. However, if demand growth is 2% or even just 1.5% per year (which it historically has been), it also begs the ever more-nagging question: Sooner or later, we will need additional energy supply—where will it come from?

In the last several years, I’ve traipsed around what is arguably the world’s third largest rainforest—the Pacific temperate forests of North America—as well as various parts of Alaska and Canada. The first thing that strikes me is that the population that now lives in these cold, expansive and often grey places could not exist there—nor could I vacation there—without using copious amounts of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The biologist, the oilman, the tourist and the adventurist citizen in the outback all require that life-supporting liquid to survive in such places. Without liquid fuels, these areas could not support their present populations.

So how will these folks survive in a future where energy is adequate, but increasingly derived from nuclear power, wind, water, geothermal and so on, but not in the form of the highly transportable liquid fuel? Either such fuels will increasingly be directed toward them, at considerable cost, or sufficient progress will be made in alternative liquid fuels derived from coal, natural gas and/or biofuels (including algae) that they can continue to thrive in what is otherwise a hostile environment. Or they will simply have to give up those great expanses for a life in the city, where electricity rules. And that’s the real point: Electricity will increasingly supply our energy in the future and will supplant liquid fuels as needed in the coming decades. Lifestyles will follow suit.

It’s almost a fait accompli that electric/plug-in hybrids will dominate the near future, gradually phasing in during the next 30 years, probably leveling off at 60% or so of all personal cars on the road. The electricity will mostly come from the present infrastructure, only at night. A recent National Energy Lab (PNNL) study said that the US has enough baseload to supply 70% of the cars in the US today if they were electric. The rest of the electric power, plus growth, will have to come from daytime solar in corporate parking lots (limited to southern latitudes), and increases in electric supply, most likely nuclear. Hopefully, these new nukes will be fourth or fifth generation, and thorium fueled—thus increasing safety, extending fuel supply and eliminating bomb-making proliferation.

While the physics of refueling eliminate recharging at a “fueling” station—the wires simply get too big and a power substation would be required beside one—it is possible to have batteries trucked to a power plant at night to be recharged at off-peak rates. They would be distributed to fueling stations during the day and installed in cars robotically. It’s not much different than what now exists with propane bottles. An embedded chip would ensure viability and charge. Of course, you could keep your own batteries and recharge from home overnight.

Solar energy’s future is ensured judging by past growth and efficiency gains, plus the fact that is currently economic without subsidies in two cases: peak generation using concentrated solar, and for heating water. But it will not work at high latitudes and maritime climates.

Wind is better distributed across the globe and especially at high altitudes—perhaps some sort of kite-like generator will be developed—but both wind and solar need energy storage schemes; several already exist. Pumped water has about 500 installations worldwide, while a few phase-change salt (for solar) installations have worked out well. There is a compressed air energy storage project that’s been working for years, and with some efficiency gains, conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen could be made to work. And of course there is the next generation of batteries. (Editor’s tip: If you haven’t invested in rare earth elements yet, then do it now.) There are several more; consult the Electricity Storage Association for a complete list.

I rather get the feeling that we’ll all be just fine in the future, but I’ll bet that all of us will turn off the light when we leave the room, turn off the water when we brush our teeth, and generally use all of our resources much more sparingly. With a little luck, we’ll have the energy to feed, clothe and amuse all of the people on Earth to a high standard and with all the “stuff” that the rich countries enjoy. The US’s problem with its epidemic of obesity, both in energy and in health, will end. We’ll live closer together, walk a bit more, and that will be a good thing—think Japan or Europe. And we’ll still get to traipse around faraway places like the Canadian Rockies—it’ll just cost a lot more.