Why the Need for New Power?

“If we think oil is a problem now, just wait 20 years. It’ll be a nightmare.”​—Jeremy Rifkin, Foundation of Economic Trends, Washington, D.C., August 2003.

WITHIN about 20 years​—by that time young Micah would be old enough to drive a car—​worldwide energy consumption “is expected to expand by 58 percent,” claims the U.S. government’s International Energy Outlook 2003 report (IEO2003). New Scientist magazine calls the predicted boom “the biggest surge in energy demand in history.” Can traditional sources of energy safely meet this demand? Consider these sobering facts.

COAL:

▪ Of all the fossil fuels, coal is the most abundant, with enough estimated reserves to last 1,000 years. Globally, coal-fired power stations supply nearly 40 percent of the world’s electricity. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, supplying almost a third of all the coal traded worldwide.

Yet, a recent Worldwatch Institute press release states: “Coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, releasing 29 percent more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and 80 percent more than natural gas. It accounts for 43 percent of annual global carbon emissions​—approximately 2.7 billion tons.” Aside from its environmental impact, what effect can coal burning have on human health? To cite one example, a recent United Nations Global Environment Outlook report stated: “In China, smoke and small particles from burning coal cause more than 50 000 premature deaths and 400 000 new cases of chronic bronchitis a year in 11 of its large cities.”

 OIL:

▪ The world already consumes 75 million barrels of oil a day. Of the world’s total oil reserves, which are estimated to have been some 2 trillion barrels in volume, approximately 900 billion barrels have already been consumed. At present production rates, oil supplies are predicted to last another 40 years.

However, geologists Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère claimed in 1998: “Within the next decade, the supply of conventional oil will be unable to keep up with demand.” These oil-industry experts warned: “Conventional wisdom erroneously assumes that the last bucket of oil can be pumped from the ground just as quickly as the barrels of oil gushing from wells today. In fact, the rate at which any well​—or any country—​can produce oil always rises to a maximum and then, when about half the oil is gone, begins falling gradually back to zero. From an economic perspective, when the world runs completely out of oil is thus not directly relevant: what matters is when production begins to taper off.”

When is oil production expected to taper off? Petroleum geologist Joseph Riva says that “planned oil production expansions . . . are less than half that needed to meet the 2010 world oil demand projected by IEA [International Energy Agency].” New Scientist warns: “If production rates fall while demand continues to rise, oil prices are likely to spike or fluctuate wildly, raising the prospect of economic chaos, problems with transporting food and other supplies, and even war as countries fight over what little oil is available.”

While some analysts see dwindling oil supplies as a problem, others feel that the end of our dependence on oil cannot come quickly enough. Writing in Utne Reader, Jeremiah Creedon says: “The only thing worse than running out of oil might be not running out of oil. The carbon dioxide we create by burning oil continues to heat the planet, yet the economy and the environment are still usually discussed as separate issues.” Highlighting the consequences of just one country’s addiction to oil, the Australian Broadcasting Commission reports: “The 26 million vehicles in the United Kingdom generate one third of all the UK’s carbon dioxide (which leads to global warming) and one third of all the UK’s air pollution (which kills around 10,000 people each year).”

 NATURAL GAS:

▪ Over approximately the next 20 years, “natural gas is projected to be the fastest growing primary energy source worldwide,” states the IEO2003 report. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels, and it is thought that the earth holds vast reserves of natural gas.

However, “no one really knows exactly how much natural gas exists until it is extracted,” states the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Gas Supply Association. “Each estimate is based on a different set of assumptions . . . It is thus difficult to get a definitive answer to the question of how much natural gas exists.”

Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and methane is “a very potent greenhouse gas. In fact, methane has an ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide,” states the previously quoted association. Nevertheless, this source says that a major study performed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Gas Research Institute “concluded that the reduction in emissions from increased natural gas use strongly outweighs the detrimental effects of increased methane emissions.”

ATOMIC ENERGY:

▪ “Some 430 nuclear reactors supply about 16 per cent of the world’s electricity,” reports Australian Geographic. In addition to these existing reactors, the IEO2003 report says: “As of February 2003, the nations of developing Asia accounted for 17 of the 35 reactors currently under construction worldwide.”

Dependence on nuclear power persists despite the possibility of disasters, such as that experienced in 1986 at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. New Scientist reports that “America’s existing reactors are being plagued by cracks and corrosion” and that in March 2002, the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio “came close to a catastrophic meltdown” as a result of corrosion problems.

Given the limited supply of and inherent dangers in existing energy sources, the question arises, Is mankind doomed to ruin the earth in their quest to feed their seemingly insatiable thirst for energy? It is obvious that we need clean, reliable alternatives. Are such alternatives both available and affordable?