Schlesinger: No Energy Security in Sight
James Schlesinger, who was the nation's first secretary of energy, had a grim analysis of the nation's current energy predicament this morning at an energy summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Schlesinger, now a senior adviser to Lehman Brothers and chairman of the nonprofit engineering organization Mitre, predicted that energy prices would continue to rise and declared that the United States would never see energy independence as long as it depended on the internal combustion engine. Excerpts from his remarks:
We regularly hear that we must ensure that energy supplies are abundant, affordable and secure—an aspiration devoutly to be wished [quoting Hamlet]. These criteria or shibboleths—to be exact—are not likely to be achieved. We are not going to have energy security. What we are trying to do is fashion a set of policies that limit or mitigate energy insecurity. And we have done fairly well in that regard, most notably with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
On the question of affordability—remember, the price of energy will continue to rise, and what the public expects, and what political leaders may promise with regard to affordability, will not transpire.... [Energy] will be available at whatever price clears the market.
The energy independence that in the 1970s was talked about by three presidents—coal was at the root of it. Coal was America's ace in the hole. America was the Saudi Arabia of coal. For reasons I need not dwell on, we know now that coal, as the main route to improving energy security, is open to continued question.... Do not chase the will o' the wisp of energy independence.
We are not going to reach energy independence as long as the U.S. depends on the internal combustion engine.
Schlesinger said that he would not get into the question of "peak oil"—whether oil is running out—and added that those who believed it was were ignoring the impact of technological improvements motivated by higher prices. "Some of the arguments about peak oil are theological," he said. However, he went on to sound much like a peak oiler—pointing out that most of the world's oil came from super fields discovered decades ago that were now in decline. Also, he noted the National Petroleum Council's observation that conventional oil production would plateau because of the geopolitical limitations on access to oil.
"But whatever the reason, bear in mind we face a painful transition to the future in which we hit a limitation or a plateau on the ability to produce crude oil, and we might begin to effectively make adjustment now rather than later," he said. If the world continues on its current path of oil use, we must find and develop the equivalent of nine more Saudi Arabias, Schlesinger said, adding, "I think the probability of being that successful is very low."
Schlesinger had one note of optimism: "The solution is technology. We are giving a big helping hand to technology by getting the price of oil up to $110. That has stirred a lot of entrepreneurial juices—indeed, entrepreneurial juices in Silicon Valley. Google has promised to devote its efforts to renewable resources by making them economic. A Cambridge, Mass., firm [A123 Systems] has promised developments on lithium ion batteries. Cellulosic ethanol will come, and [the] beauty of it is it will overcome what I shall delicately refer to as the defects of ethanol production from corn."
Tags: energy policy | energy
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (3)
Reader Comments
Wow!
The time is now. Radical, drastic change, now, is the only viable solution.
My only argument would be that he seems to think money creates innovation. It's the other way around. However, necessity is still the Mother of Invention.
Schlesinger is out of touch
If Schlesinger thinks some technological advance is needed to electrify the auto to the extent required to avoid gas, he is apparently
not paying attention. Citing Google as a posible savior is laughable - they have offered a puny amount of money to anyone who can come up with a better electrc car, aparently ignorant that anyone can (and often has) built electric cars. That's not the obstacle to a practical battery-only EV - it's the cost of the batteries and the recharge times,
making plug-ins the only viable solution. Manufacturing techniques will reduce the price of the batteries, but a 40 mile range plug like the VOLT can obtain 285 MPG during commuting in the US, even without workplace recharges, each 100 drivers using 9.4 gallons of gas per day, versus the 159 gallons they now consume. And if just 25% can recharge at work, the mileage jumps to 395 MPG and those 100 drivers only consume 4.5 gallons of liquid fuel per day. These plug-ins are practically here - talk of the need for some 'technology advancement" are just ignorant of the plug-in capabilities that are around the corner. Just relax, all you hysterics.
Electric Car
There's also a full electric car coming out this spring (sadly only in Norway) called the Th!nk City. Costs 40,000$ US, gets 180 km per charge, max speed 100 km per hour. Acceleration is lousy, but it's the closest thing I've seen to an all-electric car with a decent range and whose price is within reach for most drivers. You pay them 200 a month and they replace the battery every five years. The zebra molten-salt battery you can get with it is worth reading up on.
If oil were to dry up completely tomorrow, a car like this could let us live (with some sacrifices) our current lifestyle without requiring a major technological breakthrough.
Add your thoughts
All comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement

