Aug. 24, 2010
Some readers took offense at my recent defense of BP and of oil companies in general. The most common criticism was that we should ignore the propaganda coming from the oil companies. Instead we have to expedite the changeover from a fossil fueled economy to a non-fossil fuel economy. Actually I agree with that. The only real dispute is how long it might take for the changeover. I claim a minimum of twenty to thirty years, probably more like forty or fifty. And in the meantime I pointed out we are desperately dependent on oil for the very survival of our civilization.
Some say the oil companies are promoting a long time scenario because they want to make money and discourage competition. That may be true. The environmental lobby and the present federal government are promoting a competitive view that we can and must changeover much faster. That may be true. Who do you believe? Both views have merit. Both are self-serving. The oil companies make more money the longer the “meantime” is. The environmental groups (and the present government) get more publicity, more members (or more votes) the louder they sound the alarms.
Profits from oil sales actually finance a substantial portion of renewable research, most of which will not make a nickel. Taxes subsidize a whole host of alternative research projects, most of which will also be losers. The difference is the oil companies eat their losses. Taxpayers aren’t so lucky.
The environmental lobbies have been extremely effective in promoting a “green” agenda that is stridently anti-oil and often, in my opinion, anti-capitalist. Corporations like BP, Dow Chemical and Monsanto have fallen in step and also claim to be “green” (at least their advertising says so). It is easy to understand that the oil companies have vested interests that influence their behavior and their advertising.
It is not so easy for people to understand that environmentalists also have their self-serving vested interests. Bernard Cohen, a leading research physicist at the University of Pittsburgh, pointed out to us in an interview a few years ago that “the environmental movement has its own self-interest which the media and the public don’t seem to recognize.” He went on to charge that “the word ‘environmentalist’ has a pure and unselfish meaning. The truth is, environmental groups that have active programs and are winning battles are going to prosper and get foundation support and lots of dues-paying members. So they are under very heavy pressure to pick out issues where they can win political victories. They won a big political victory in destroying nuclear power. They won political victories in getting DDT banned and getting ethylene dibromide banned and getting rid of alar in apples. All of these are technologically nonsensical decisions.”
I’m afraid the same thing is happening today with the trashing of BP and even with some of the crisis-mongering about climate change. When you look outside your window and count up all the ways we depend on oil for our modern life it has to give you pause. No matter how green you might want to live you still have to eat. You still have to have shelter. And heat and cooling. And transportation. And communication. And health care. And police and fire prevention. And environmental protection. And schools and books and computers and an Internet, etc. etc. All of these basic activities today are almost 100% dependent on energy (and materials) derived from fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. Well, over 90% at least.
Leaving aside for the moment the energy for all of our transportation needs, we in the U.S. and Canada get about 20% of our electrical energy from nuclear power and about 12% from renewable hydroelectric dams. Most of the rest comes from burning coal, a small percentage from natural gas and a much smaller percentage from biomass. In some parts of the country, and in some parts of Europe wind energy has taken off in the last few years. In the U.S. and Canada it accounts for maybe one or two percent of our electrical energy. In Denmark they claim windmills produce up to 20% of their electricity. Some experts question that figure. They also point out that Denmark has the highest rates for electricity in Europe. Denmark has not been able to shut down any of their coal plants because wind power is unreliable so they need fossil fuels and imported electricity from the European grid to provide power when the wind isn’t blowing. Ironically they also need it when the wind blows too hard because high winds could damage the windmill blades and so they have to shut down.
In addition recent research has shown that wind energy farms not only cause more or less severe health problems to nearby residents, they also save very little if any carbon dioxide emission. This is because wind is intermittent. (So is sunlight.) This means you have to have backup fossil fuel (or nuclear) plants to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. The required stop-and-go cycling of the fossil fuel plants results in a severe drop in efficiency and consequently much more carbon dioxide emissions. That is happening now in Denmark.
Despite the problems I think we should continue experimenting with wind and with solar power. And certainly and especially, with schemes to promote more efficiency in the way we use energy and materials. Here I am in agreement with the greens. We need to be looking for new ways to do more with less. Keep in mind though the “do more” part. Just doing “less” won’t cut it, unless you are willing to have still more unemployment and poverty. More about that next week.
Another objection some people have to oil is the claim that that we have reached the “peak” already in oil resources and the future looks pretty grim so we better button up and conserve what we have, use less, live greener, etc. etc. This objection is in my view shortsighted and plainly mistaken. Expert predictions about how much oil is hidden in the earth’s crust have been almost comically mistaken.
In 1914 the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted the U.S. had just enough oil left in the ground to last another ten years. In 1939 the U.S. Dept. of Interior predicted we had enough oil to last another 13 years. In 1944, experts estimated Persian Gulf reserves at 16 billion barrels proved and 5 billion probable. By 1975, those same fields had produced 42 billion barrels and had 74 billion remaining. By 1984, geologists estimated another 199 billion barrels remaining. Etc. Etc.
Like end-of-the-world predictions of religious cults, the peak-day keeps getting further and further off. And it has been the same story with oil and natural gas reserves in North and South America. In fact it has been the same story with minerals, food, and just about all natural resources just about everywhere in the world.
A very recent case in point is Israel; a country that had has often taken pride in achieving a high standard of living in the Middle East without having any oil or gas reserves (or for that matter few natural resources of any kind) in its own territory. Just last week a headline in the NY Times read “Israel Agog Over News On Energy.” It seems that USGS geologists have discovered enormous deposits of natural gas just a few miles off the north shore of Israel. There is almost certainly, they report, enough natural gas there to power the entire country for many years to come and even to export some of it to other countries.
So too in the U.S., Mexico and Canada there is much much more oil and gas to be discovered and used—actually much more than in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq combined. Some of these oil and gas reserves in North America are in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico but the bulk of them are deep underground in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Rocky Mountains. If we are serious in wanting to become energy “independent;” and if we are serious in wanting to create American jobs that are real jobs; and if we are serious in wanting to choke off funds to terrorist states and groups; the obvious thing to do is to move heaven and earth to accelerate our search and our production capabilities for American oil and gas. That seems to me to be a no-brainer.
Yes, there are environmental problems in drilling and mining for American oil and gas just as there are environmental problems in drilling or mining for anything anywhere.
“Green technology” like solar cells, hybrid batteries, iPhones, windmill turbines, hybrid automobiles, radar, fluorescent bulbs, flat screen television sets, satellites, computers—indeed almost all emerging green technologies–require rare earth elements that today come almost completely from China. The Chinese mines that bring up these rare earths are noted for their severe pollution problems. The Chinese have recently warned the rest of the world that soon they may forbid any exports of these rare earths. Unless we want to abandon all emerging green technologies we will have to find deposits in the western world, mine them and find ways to mitigate the environmental damages. And no doubt we will.
Worthy of note too is that most of these emerging green technologies rely on other common but potentially toxic chemicals that contain cadmium, arsenic, lead, mercury and other potentially toxic elements. In other words there is no free lunch when it comes to environmental or economic issues. We may dream of the perfect but we have to be satisfied with the better in order to avoid the worst. In that choice, oil and gas are better than coal. And in the long run they may even, surprisingly enough, be better than biomass, wind or sun.
The point is not to slow or condemn alternative energy programs. And most certainly not to curtail basic research in renewable alternatives. Nor is it to exonerate fossil fuel use which admittedly does have serious pollution consequences even apart from its problematic contribution to climate change. Instead we need to be wise, patient and creative. Let’s not fall for the latest fad and waste precious resources on glamorous but faulty technologies, but work and wait for better alternatives. And realize that even the best will have faults and unintended consequences.
At the moment I think that all things considered nuclear power is the wisest choice for lessening our dependence on fossil fuels with the least risk of environmental damage. I think natural gas is second best. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel but it is much less harmful than coal. And if I had to wager on more distant future sources I would hesitantly bet on fusion power with hydrogen as a byproduct to be used to power vehicles, run lawnmowers and power portable generators. Solar and wind will have increasing use in special locations and for special purposes but in the long run I doubt they will ever be major players in the energy world.
I realize that many will disagree. I wait with some trepidation and much anticipation to your responses.
Bill Stonebarger, Owner/President Hawkhill
P.S. You can’t escape my usual plugs for DVD programs. See ENERGY ON EARTH (Science Books & Films labeled this “one of the best films of last five years.”) See also ENERGY AND SOCIETY, GLOBAL WARMING and RESOURCES, POPULATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.