Sustainable thinking

I have discussed how our present energy path is not sustainable. We are setting ourselves up for difficult times ahead. We are dependent on foreign sources for 60% of our petroleum and we do not have a plan or a remedy.

Our fiscal policy is also unsustainable. The national debt is already over $8.5 trillion and is presently increasing at $300 billion per year. By 2008, the end of the present administration, every man, woman and child will owe more than $30,000. Deficits are likely to grow much larger as health and retirement costs mount for the baby boom generation. Besides diminishing the future income of Americans, the deficit could trigger a fiscal crisis.

One of the most remarkable events in my lifetime was the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is a good example of the result of pursuing unsustainable practices. When I first traveled to Russia in 1986 the exchange rate was $1.67 per ruble. Without going through all the details, the system collapsed so that today $1 converts to nearly 30 rubles. That’s a factor of 50, but the kicker is that the ruble was devalued by a factor of 1,000 in 1998. If a Russian citizen had saved the equivalent of $50,000 in 1986, he/she would have $1 left today.

Unsustainable practices lead to collapse. Jared Diamond, in his book titled Collapse, gives several examples. He starts with Easter Island in the Pacific, a civilization that became impoverished by overpopulation and deforestation of an isolated land area. The dot-com collapse of 2000-2001 is a modern example of the eventual result of unsustainable growth. Such situations tend to overshoot a level that can be supported and fall uncontrollably as the situation becomes desperate and faith in the system is lost.

An example closer to home to District 19 is the Ogallala Aquifer. It extends from Nebraska to the southern Texas Panhandle. This tremendous resource is renewable but is rapidly being depleted by agricultural and urban water usage. I remember as a boy that my father rented a farm near Whitharral that had 10-inch wells, describing the pipe diameter required for the water output. I am told that those same wells today only pump enough to fill a 5-inch pipe. Since the flow rate increases as the area (square of the diameter), the wells pump only one-fourth of the water compared to 50 years ago. This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons, when a resource is freely available to all, but its management is the responsibility of no one.

The best way to avert collapses of our petroleum supply, national fiscal system, or water supply is to acknowledge we have a problem and initiate proactive changes. These situations, as well as global warming, have several features in common. They have a long time scale. They are gradually becoming more serious. The effects accumulate and are difficult or costly to reverse. Postponing action only makes the problem worse. The basis of the problems is the desire for short-term gains without considering long-term cost or effects.

In closing, I want to emphasize that I am optimistic about solving all of these problems in acceptable ways. But the present policy of neglect is making the problems worse and making the solutions more difficult.

More on energy

I noted at the end of my last blog entry the announcement of the discovery of new oil in the Gulf of Mexico by Chevron and two other companies. An interesting analysis by Jim Cramer of TheStreet.com caught my eye. The following is an excerpt:

It's not an easy time to wait for news of big finds. For the longest time, the national oil companies didn't want oil so high that we would pursue alternatives to oil. That's changed now. Iran and Venezuela seem to want so much to see the West hobbled that they're ignoring the long-term view. And the Saudis are running out of oil.

The sense from most of the dreamers out there is that alternative energy is the ticket. The sense from the hardliners is that dirty coal is the answer.

The real answer, at least for the next decade, is that we need to find more oil.

That's why this Devon-Chevron find matters so much. It's what we will be hearing about much more in the future, and more of these finds will keep oil from going to $100, where it would be headed otherwise.


When I started reading this article, I expected to disagree with the contents. Then I realized that there is much commonality in our viewpoints. And Mr. Cramer writes succinctly. The first paragraph alludes to the following facts: 1) as long as petroleum is cheap there is little incentive to pursue alternatives, 2) we import much of our oil from countries that are not very friendly with us, and 3) oil resources are finite.

In the second paragraph, I would definitely classify myself as a dreamer instead of a hardliner. Then there is mutual agreement that oil is a short-term solution, not long-term. And without continual new discoveries oil will go to $100, then ...

Mr. Cramer is an investments advisor, and investors are concerned with turning a profit. In order to attract investors, companies are more focused on immediate returns than on the long term. I contend that we need an energy policy that addresses the inevitable end of easily accessed (and cheap) oil. The Gulf discovery is far offshore (175 miles), in very deep water (more than 7,000 feet), and is 30,000 feet below the gulf’s surface. This oil will not be cheap to produce.

Which brings up the point that I myself adhered to at one time: that the problem will take care of itself since as oil becomes more expensive alternative energy resources will become more competitive. My misgivings with this do-nothing-now solution are that we are setting ourselves up for a hard landing as demand continues to increase as supplies dwindle, we may be forced in desperation to accept ill-advised energy paths such as synthetic oil from “dirty coal”. it does not address global warming, and encourages “business as usual” instead of increasing public awareness of our energy addiction.

We need an U.S. energy policy. We need to change the direction of a very large ship.

In my next blog entry I plan to discuss sustainable solutions.

The inevitable energy solution

I discussed the finiteness of petroleum reserves in the last blog entry. We must develop another method to provide the energy required for transportation, agriculture and shipping. The two most viable options are coal gasification and hydrogen. Although coal is our most abundant fossil fuel, increasing its production is objectionable for several reasons: it is environmentally damaging (and dangerous) to mine, sulfur in coal produces sulfuric acid (and acid rain), mercury impurities are released into the environment (heavy metal poisoning), and large amounts of particulates and carbon dioxide are produced.

Combustion of all fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation emitted by the earth and warm it to a habitable temperature, the so-called greenhouse effect. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing steadily and average global temperatures have increased approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Some climate models predict that global temperatures could increase an additional several degrees and sea levels would rise tens of feet from melting ice and expansion of water. Global warming seems to be ignored by the present administration, but most scientists take it seriously. I am a scientist, but I am not an expert on climate modeling. It is fair to say there are significant uncertainties in these models. We can’t even predict rainfall two weeks in advance with reasonable accuracy. There are dissenting points of view, a not uncommon phenomenon in scientific circles.

A logical (and safe) long-term solution is the production of hydrogen that can be used in an internal combustion engine or, better yet, in fuel cells. The catch is we need an energy source to produce the hydrogen from the electrolysis of water. Ultimately, this energy must be produced in a sustainable way from renewable resources (e.g., solar photovoltaic cells and wind power) or nuclear fusion. In the mean time, the only solution I see as viable is nuclear fission. And not just ordinary fission reactors, but nuclear breeder reactors that extend our (also finite) uranium resources by a factor of 100.

A hydrogen economy is decades away, at best. But notice the absence of carbon in the equation. It’s a long-term solution to an inevitable problem. The time to proceed toward that solution is now, while we still have adequate petroleum reserves. This is not a doomsday scenario. New technologies will arise that will provide economic growth.

I am fully aware of the arguments against nuclear power, primarily long-lived radioactive wastes and nuclear proliferation. These problems have possible solutions, such as accelerator transmutation of the waste and utilization of the plutonium as an energy source, not as a weapon. Nuclear power plants already produce 20% of the electricity in the U.S. and around 80% in France. Nuclear fuel is used to power submarines around the globe and sailors sleep within feet of the reactor. As far as I know, no human life has ever been lost due to the operation of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. That’s an enviable safety record.

I am not proposing that we turn toward nuclear fuel for all our energy needs. Ethanol production, wind energy, photovoltaic solar cells, and other technologies should all be developed. And we must not lose sight of the fact that energy conservation, using it more efficiently and wisely, is the best solution to prolong our reserves and minimize environmental degradation. Conservation does not necessarily mean accepting a lower standard of living. For example, biking to work is good exercise, enjoyable, relaxing, friendly to the environment, and economical.

I just read of a fantastic find in the Gulf of Mexico of an oil field that could boost our oil and gas reserves by 50%. As a result, oil futures are below $69 per barrel and appear to be headed lower. Perhaps we have dodged the bullet again. I still contend that we need an energy policy that recognizes that, eventually, we will exhaust these great non-renewable resources.

Energy Policy

One of the main reasons that I decided to run for Congress is my perception that the two major political parties have lost the ability to work together on issues that are of major importance to the future of our country. A prime example is energy policy, or lack thereof.

Energy is very much in the news now, with crude oil future prices leaping past $60, then $70, before topping out near $77 per barrel in 2006. As of this writing, the price has decreased to just less than $70. Perhaps it will go lower. Eventually, it will go higher to $100 per barrel, then $200... I write this with confidence. The only question is when these price barriers will be broken. Petroleum is a finite resource and we long ago passed the point where we could satisfy our demand with domestic production. We presently import more than 60% of the petroleum we consume. U.S. production peaked in the early 1970’s and has declined to about 2/3 of the maximum since then.

The incumbent party’s response to this situation has been bewildering. Our president and vice president each have big oil backgrounds. They were instrumental in 2005 in promoting (and passing) legislation that included billions of dollars of tax incentives for oil companies to spur off-shore production. Oil at that time was around $50 per barrel and had already doubled in price during the previous three years. Oil companies have reaped record profits in the past year (more than $37 billion for Exxon-Mobil alone).

As I wrote in my last blog, I was puzzled by Mr. Neugebauer’s statement that we have abundant energy resources in this country. He never mentioned the finiteness of petroleum reserves or global warming as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. I completely agree that we should encourage the development of renewable energy. But corn-based ethanol cannot eradicate our imports since, at present, it takes nearly as much energy to produce (in the form of diesel, fertilizer, and pumping of water) as the energy yield. There are ways to increase this efficiency, but the word is still out on how much ethanol will help in the long run.

Petroleum is not the only energy problem we face. I was surprised when our electrical rate topped $0.20 per kilowatt-hour in May, a consequence of the spike in natural gas prices. Groceries are going up, presumably because of increased production and transportation costs. Several people are having a difficult time paying these increased prices for essentials.

We need a comprehensive, well-defined energy policy and we need it now. In my next entry I will discuss the actions that I think we should take.