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.