Our energy future – a point of view

---

Energy Bulletin is honored to publish this extensive paper by Joseph DiNunno, a retired engineer with a 64-year career in in the electrical/nuclear field, with emphasis on the “safety of nuclear reactors and environmental considerations in power plant siting.” He has worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the NUS Corporation, and in many other positions.

Early in his career, Mr. DiNunno served in the Naval Reactor group under Admiral Hyman Rickover, whose prescient 1957 talk on energy we recently published. Mr. DiNunno spent the last 10 years of full-time employment with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) under presidental appointments, approved by the Senate. He went into partial retirement in 2002, but remains active as a part-time consultant to the Board.

This posting is the first publication of the paper anywhere. A summary of the paper is also online.

-BA

---

1.0 The Issue

Roman civilization reached heights unparalleled at the time of its peak, due largely to the energy of slaves harnessed to its bidding. The slaves rebelled and Roman civilization went into decline. It is succinctly said of that time that:

Rome burned, while Nero fiddled!

We live in another era but our civilization is equally challenged to adapt our lifestyles to better reflect our energy future if we are to survive. We and other industrialized nations have developed to our present states in fairly recent times. We have done so to a large extent through use of fossil fuels – coal, gas, and oil. These fuels, however, are finite. Forecasts are that with anticipated consumption rates, global supplies of oil will be exhausted in 50 years, natural gas in 90 years, and coal in 390 years.

Yet, demand and consumption rates continue to grow as populations of industrialized nations increase and underdeveloped nations strive to reap benefits that energy availability makes possible.

There are strong indications that global supplies of oil have already peaked, even as demand continues to grow. There is both a national and global challenge to find alternatives in time to prevent apocalyptic-type consequences in the future as fossil energy supplies, particularly oil, dwindle and competition for existing supplies intensifies. Some alternatives, such as solar, wind , and nuclear power, have already been developed and applied for electric power generation but neither existing technology nor any that is currently under development, except atomic energy perhaps, provides much hope for satisfying the large energy needs of the human race in a post-fossil fuel era.

While there is a growing awareness that our society must undergo a change in our energy use patterns, particularly oil, actions to date by our national leadership has not yet caused the scale of change the threatening situation requires.

2.0 Fossil Energy: The Hubbert Peak

2.1 Finiteness of the Fossil Fuels

The finiteness of our fossil fuels – coal, natural gas and oil – has been realized for decades, with too little concern about their eventual depletion and its effects on man, and too much attention to discovery and the riches it offered. King Hubbert, a noted geophysicist of his time, gave much impetus to the search for alternatives when in 1956, at a meeting of the American Petroleum in San Antonio, Texas, he predicted that oil production in the USA would peak between 1965 and 1970 and that of the world in the year 2000.

Fossil fuels as a group he estimated might last for as much as a thousand years. Hubbert presented this outlook in making the case that man should be preparing for his long-term energy future by looking more seriously at the potential of atomic energy, more specifically to materials with atomic structure that are fissionable or convertible to a fissionable state. Such materials he advised were relatively abundant in nature and offered the possibility of an energy supply for thousands of years beyond the fossil fuel era.

King Hubbert observed that:

In examination of the history and predictions of the use of energy by man it was evident that looked at in terms of geological time, the use of fossil fuels could only be considered a passing phase.

[Text of Hubbert’s 1956 speech (PDF)]

2.2 Civilization and Energy

2.2.1 King Hubbert

King Hubbert advanced his case further in 1969 as a contributor to a study done by the National Academy of Science when he wrote:

… Until recent centuries the increase in the rate of total energy consumption was very much less than the increase of population growth. Consequently the population tended to remain in balance with increase in energy supply while the biologic and inorganic energy consumed per capita remained in a low, nearly constant level — only slightly more than that of the food supply.

Release from this constraint was not possible until an energy supply capable of exploitation faster than the human population could grow should become available. Such an energy supply is that represented by the fossil fuels. Continuous mining of coal began eight centuries ago and production of petroleum just over a century ago.

From small beginnings, the use of energy from these sources has grown until, during most of the last century, world consumption of energy from fossil fuels has increased at about 4 percent per year.

The world’s human population has also responded to this stimulus and is now growing at the rate of just under 2 percent per year. Hence at present the world’s average non-nutrient energy consumption per capita is increasing at about 2 percent per year.

[PDF of Hubbert’s 1969 essay, “Energy Resources.”]

2.2.2 Historical Use of Energy

In 1969, the same year of the National Academy study, another informative report on the historical use of energy, written by David Freeman, was issued by the U.S Office of Science and Technology. David Freeman wrote:

…from pre-historic times to the year 1700, man’s supplemental energy was confined to animal muscles and the energy from wood and other materials used essentially for cooking and heating. The amount of energy used was relatively trivial.

Until the early 1800s, coal, oil and gas in the U.S. were virtually untouched. Until 1830, this nation obtained all of its energy from renewable sources.

In the 1830s coal came into use but by 1870 wood still provided 75 percent of the nation’s energy.

By the 1870s, the industrial revolution was in full swing and in the 1880s energy became available in its most versatile form-electricity.

Petroleum – first discovered in 1860 – did not become a major source of fuel until the early 1900’s… Natural gas was a late comer to the scene-along about 1930.

Oil and gas have now [i.e., 1969] replaced coal as the dominant source of energy, supplying 75 percent of our energy needs.

All the energy that was consumed in the nations’ prior century would not equal next year’s consumption. [i.e., 1970].

With respect to our fossil resources, there is a very real possibility that in a very short span of the next century we could use up nature’s work of a hundred million years.

2.2.3 Nuclear Power R&D:

In the 1950 and 1960s the US Government actively promoted the development and use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity and naval propulsion. This task was assigned to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). AEC leadership understood, as did King Hubbert, the need for an alternative to the fossil fuels. AEC Commissioner Dr. T. J. Thompson wrote:

…During the 17th century the world’s population doubled that reached by the previous 16 centuries. During this period energy per capita usage remained essentially constant. Since then, the world’s increase in energy consumption has outstripped the population growth. Currently, the use of energy in the U.S. is doubling about every ten years and the population is doubling every 35 years.

It is the differential between the energy available and that needed to sustain life that has given man, not only the power to run the machinery of our complex technology, but more significantly has enabled him to divert an ever increasing fraction of his effort from the basic needs for survival to other creative purposes.

It has done this by placing at the disposal of each of us equivalent work output that would not otherwise be available. In the U.S, the total use of power makes available to an average individual the equivalent output of 44 people; electrical energy’s share of this is the equivalent of about nine people.

The sustained growth in energy consumption cannot continue indefinitely unless sources other than fossil fuels are developed and environmental consequences are tolerable…

2.2.4 Advocacy for a More Assured Energy Future

These early activists for a more secure and longer lasting global energy supply sounded the wake-up call. Their message was clear. Without a dramatic shift away from dependence upon the finite fossil fuels, the civilization their use enabled could not be sustained. Many others have since joined the call for course change before the situation reaches a point of no recovery. For example, the Cosmos Club of Washington held a symposium in April 2005, entitled “Responsible Energy Policy: Our Future Depends On It.” Speakers included:

• Lester R. Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, and author of 50 books, most recently Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble.

• Thomas B. Cochran, holder of the Wade Greene Chair for nuclear policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council
• William J. Dircks, a former senior staff member of AEC, NRC, and the IAEA and now a senior councilor of The Atlantic Council
• Joseph M. Dukert, a political economist and energy consultant .who served as a member of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Oceans, Energy and Environment and as a consultant to the DOE and its predecessor agencies in the drafting and editing of a number of proposed energy policy plans submitted to Congress
• Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch, and a specialist in energy security, climate policy, renewable resources and sustainable development.
• Robert W. Fri, a distinguished scientist, former government agency administrator at ERDA and EPA and past president of Resources for the Future
• John H Gibbons, chairman of the Board of Population Action International and former Science Advisor to President Clinton and former director of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
• Amory B. Lovins director of the Rocky Mountain Institute and author of may books, his latest being Winning the Oil End Game.

The expertise represented in the panelists and the lively discussion that ensued attested to a high awareness of need by people of stature and foresight for an energy policy more visionary than now exists— one that looks at the long term not the short term, global not just national.

3.0 Energy Data

Sobering facts relative to energy, its supply and uses, are presented in a variety of sources, so many in fact that it is difficult to distill the essence from the mash, the truth from the assumptions. Those who should be the most knowledgeable – the oil suppliers – have the least motive to reveal the true state of supply and hence their data, however truthfully reported, are taken as suspect.

Governments, including our own, are dependent largely upon data supplied by non-government sources and hence cannot certify its reliability or accuracy through first-hand knowledge. Although the need for reliable intelligence data relative to our energy future is as vital to our national security as that required for our military defense, it does not seem to be accorded the same sense of importance.

3.1 Energy Information Agency (EIA) Data

A comprehensive source of public information relative to our energy outlook is the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy. EIA publishes volumes of statistics. It does not require too many to appreciate the implications of dwindling availability of affordable supplies.

The following are a few selected statistics by the EIA.

• Our transportation system is largely dependent on oil. Approximately 2/3 of our current oil supply is dependent upon foreign imports. In the near future, natural gas imports of 20-25% are anticipated.

• Forecasts are that with anticipated consumption rates, global supplies of oil will be exhausted in 50 years, natural gas in 90 years and coal in 390 years

3.2 Oil Outlook: Differing Views

Those who wish to be better informed on our energy future and search the literature may be confounded by a wide range of views on the subject. Much of the debate is centered on the “Hubbert Peak Theory”. While clear evidence is that oil production in the USA peaked around 1970, there is disagreement as to whether oil production world-wide has yet done so. As summarized in Wikipedia: [The Wikepedia entry has since been revised and expanded.]

Opinions on the effect of passing Hubbert’s peak range from faith that the market economy will produce a solution, to predictions of doomsday scenarios of a global economy unable to meet its energy needs.

What is less controversial is evidence that demand world-wide is increasing faster than new discoveries are made, hence producing escalation on costs per barrel of crude on the open market and gasoline at the gas pumps.

The transportation sector is by far the greatest user of oil. The need to address this sector is widely recognized as the most immediate issue, yet actions proportional to the seriousness of the issue have not been forthcoming either in the USA or elsewhere.

Transportation is closely linked to sustainability of the world population as we know it. Globally we and other nations are greatly dependent upon oil for production, processing and distribution of the products our global population requires for sustainability. Global transportation networks have served as the ties that have made possible the development and sustainability of nations not able otherwise to be self-sufficient and have enhanced the lifestyles of populations able to afford the luxury of imports.

Without oil, sustainability of our own population in the lifestyle to which it has become accustomed is not without great uncertainty for we have long parted from our simpler, self-sufficient agrarian past. In the USA there has been a major shift from habitation in urban centers with principal services within walking access, to far-flung suburban settlements that require personal transportation to access work centers and shopping facilities. The economics of mass transportation systems have been sacrificed to the luxury of one or more automobiles per family with “bigger and faster” the new auto development objective, not energy conservation.

Oil production in the United States peaked in 1970 as King Hubbert forecast. Foreign imports have increased over the years with ever escalating prices, driven by global oil market economics. As the statistics show, approximately 2/3 of our current oil supply comes from foreign sources.

Global supplies of oil are reported to be near or past their peak. However, like global warming, there are differing views on the matter. Nonetheless there is growing awareness that the economic consequences of any significant reduction in supply from that we enjoy today, whether by market forces reflecting dwindling supply or deliberate actions of geopolitical nature, would be severe.

It was not King Hubbert’s alert of 1956 that sounded a wake-up call relative to vulnerability of our society to dependence on fossil fuels but the politically motivated disruption of oil supply from the Middle East in 1973. The chaotic state that event triggered showed dramatically the vulnerability of any nation heavily dependent upon foreign sources of vital energy supplies. However, once the crisis passed, life in the USA went back to normal. More recently, the dramatic economic effect of disruptions in supply caused by hurricane Katrina and the politically motivated shutoff of natural gas by Russia to its neighbors attest to this kind of vulnerability.

The finiteness of global supply of oil and its projected end are perilous conditions not only for consuming nations but for supply nations as well. Without oil, many of the current supply nations, particularly in the Middle East, will not be able to sustain their growing populations by trade of alternate goods and materials for they have little to offer other than oil. This economic need for oil income in turn is encouraging pumping rates at major foreign oil reservoirs that reportedly are not conducive to optimum recovery from them. Any significant disruption in supply either in our domestic sources or foreign suppliers could cause significant national economic impact, if short term, and very severe impact if long term.

The relative stability in supply and costs we have enjoyed in recent years is the result of actions of a friendly Saudi government. The threats to continued stability in the Middle East are equally threats to the surety of our foreign supply of oil and our economic prosperity.

A substantive book on the Saudi oil fields, Twilight in the Desert, has been written by Matthew Simmons, Chairman and CEO of Simmons and Company International, a Houston-based investment bank that specializes in the energy industry. The thrust of his treatise is that the supplies of Middle East Oil may have already reached their peak. He alleges that the major fields are being pumped at rates not likely to be sustainable for long or to produce sufficiently to maintain the stability in supply our great dependence upon imports from the region requires to avoid severe economic shock. The projections of reserves are said to be suspect and make for lack of confidence in projections that are meant to assure us that we can depend on availability for periods projected either by the oil suppliers or our own estimators.

Another compelling view on the subject has been written recently by James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. The scenario he projects as foreign supplies gradually dwindle is one of global strife and chaos and the need for global scale planning of a kind mankind has never been challenged to do before. The cover of this book depicts a scenario of life style far different from that we have learned to enjoy and hope to pass on to our children and generations yet to come.

Lester Brown, renowned author and lecturer on sustainability of civilizations also visualizes substantial economic re-structuring and changes in lifestyles as we move into the era “beyond the oil peak.”

Analysts such as those cited above are characterized by their more optimistic counterparts as “doomers” because of the doomsday nature of their writings. Although one might rightfully challenge the rigor of depletion forecasts such as theirs, there is little reason to question the concept of finiteness. As King Hubbert and others of like view persuasively argue, the issue is not whether the supply of affordable fossil fuels will end but when.

Oil companies, one may note, do not speak as one voice relative to our energy future, nor are their forecasts viewed with credibility. They are more often accused of gouging the public because of the high price for gasoline at the pumps and record payout for household heating oil.

For example, as reported recently, British Petroleum (BP) Chairman John Browne in a speech at the Brookings Institution maintained that those with views that the world is approaching peak production were mistaken. Brown reportedly expressed a much more optimistic view, not on the basis of factual data relative to future supplies but upon faith in the fundamental characteristic of human behavior to respond to perceived risks by finding an alternative way forward. One could hardly avoid noting that it was not faith in the future of oil that BP was depending for future business growth but on a re-orientation of the company toward the delivery of alternatives.

Like British Petroleun, Exxon Mobil has also taken issue with those forecasting relative short remaining lifetimes for oil supplies. Exxon has stated that peak production is nowhere in sight.Citing information attributed to the U.S. Geological Survey, Exxon Mobil stated that the earth was endowed with 3.3 trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil and that combined with oil estimated in oil shale total, an estimated 4 trillion barrels. Of that amount, only an estimated trillion barrels of oil “has been used since the dawn of human history.” As noted earlier in this paper, oil use in any significant amount did not occur prior to the 1900s. Hence use of the “dawn of history” as a reference point distorts the outlook for the future as judged from consumption rates of the past. In truth, we have reached our current state relative to oil in just a hundred years!

On the other hand, Chevron appears to be a strong advocate of conservation in recognition of the great pressures Americans are placing upon global suppliers who face well depletion and increased global demands for oil. Via a recent double page ad in the Washington Post, Chevron virtually shouted out for attention of the public that:

The world consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel it discovers

Chevron observed that:

The industry needs to get more from existing fields while continuing to search for new reserves. Automakers must continue to improve fuel efficiency and perfect hybrid vehicles. Technical improvements are needed so that wind, solar, and hydrogen can be more viable parts of the energy equation. Governments need to create energy policies that promote economically and environmentally sound development. Consumers must demand and be willing to pay for some of these solutions while practicing conservation efforts of their own.

These are not simply oil industry propaganda statements. They are common sense suggestions that all consumers and our national leadership should heed.

Much to its credit, Chevron has launched a “Will You Join Us” initiative to inform the public of the world wide oil and gas situation and to encourage discussion about paths forward.

4.0 Alternatives to Fossil Fuels

4.1 Renewables

Mankind has been created and nurtured by energy emanating from the sun and the force of gravity. Energy from these sources captured, transformed and used in various forms make up the group referred to as “renewables.”

Use of renewable energy is virtually as old as mankind itself, as manifest in sailing vessels, windmills, water wheels and the fireplace. Today hydro power is the most abundant source of renewable energy. Hydro power contributes approximately 7% of the electric generating supply in the USA. Hydro power promises to remain a significant source of renewable energy, in the future. Major expansion in hydro capacity is not likely, however, because the more favorable places have already been developed. Low-head hydro offers the potential for some new electric capacity but not significantly relative to the electric supply now generated by alternate means.

Applications of both solar heating and wind turbine technology have increased appreciably in recent years and some conservation measures, such as new building codes to conserve heat and higher appliance efficiency standards have been mandated.

Ethanol is being produced largely from corn in the U.S and used as an additive to gasoline. Production is small relative to consumption of oil. Brazil is producing ethanol from sugar cane at costs lower than the corn-based ethanol in the U.S. Bio-fuels are also being developed in Europe for diesel fuels. While promising as an alternative to oil, it is difficult to envision the diversion of enough agricultural lands from food sources to fuel the transportation sector of our economy. In any case technological advances are required if ethanol as a supply is to provide more energy than it consumes to produce.

Hydrogen as a fuel is seen by some as the most promising fuel of the future for our automobiles. To date most hydrogen produced commercially is reformed from the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal). Only a small percentage comes from ionization of water using electric power. Cheaper power, either from renewables or nuclear power could enhance the prospects for hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the future

Currently, renewables supply but 3% of our electric energy production. Renewables as a whole are measures that fall into the category of “every little bit helps.” However the effect of such measures to date on reducing pressures on global reserves is not perceptible as global demands continue to increase and energy costs escalate, nor do they promise to be adequate to provide the long-term energy surety the world seeks for the post-fossil fuel era.

The prospects for hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the future may well depend upon nuclear power for the conversion source of energy. Accepting the inefficiency of the conversion process may be necessary because no other practical alternative may be found to support the transportation sector.

4.2 Nuclear Power

4.2.1 The Light Water Reactor (LWR)

The development of basic nuclear science and reactor technology by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the success of the Naval Reactors (NR) Light Water Reactor (LWR) program during the 1950-1970s led to the construction by the USA electric power industry of a considerable number of commercial LWR power plants. This turn to nuclear power for generation of electricity represented a major shift away from the fossil fuels. Other nations followed with diverse designs, including the LWR type. Those less endowed with secure supplies of alternate fuels, such as England, France Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea invested proportionally much more of their total electric power capacity in nuclear power.

Growth in production of nuclear electric power in the United States, however, was brought to a halt in the late 1970s by escalating costs of plant construction and public opposition due to concerns about safety. The reactor accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 brought these safety fears to the fore. Construction of new nuclear power plants internationally slowed but continued. Leadership in development and application of reactor technology began to shift from the United States to Europe and Japan. The accident at Chernobyl in 1986 contributed further to the unease everywhere about nuclear power.

The scientists and engineers who developed LWR technology were quite aware that the fuel cycle for this type of reactor would not bring to the world the long-term energy supply that fission of the atom promised. The fuel cycle of the LWR uses uranium. Natural uranium is largely in isotopic form U-238 that is not fissionable. A small fraction (0.7%) is fissionable U-235. The uranium used for fuel for LWRs is enriched to 4% in U-235. Only a small fraction of the U-235 is fissioned when the fuel is considered spent. A small fraction of the uranium is converted to plutonium (1%), a fissionable material. If these residual fissile materials are recovered and used to fabricate new fuel elements, the projected lifetime of uranium supply would be vastly increased.

Uranium 235 (0.7%) in natural uranium is neither widespread nor sufficiently abundant to sustain an energy-driven global economy as it exists today. The large uranium reserves to support the nuclear power in the near term lie primarily in Canada and Australia, although a number of other nation are also suppliers. Forecasts as to uranium supply for the future vary considerably depending upon the assumptions, but are on the order of a half century or less. An MIT study in 2003, for example concluded that:

We believe that the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors operated world wide over the next half century and to maintain that deployment over a 40-year lifetime of this fleet.

Hence, a global shift away from fossil fuels to uranium as currently used would be simply a shift from one relatively short-term source to another. Reprocessing the spent fuel and recovering the fissionable materials could lengthen the lifetime of uranium resources considerably.

The promise of atomic energy as a long-time source lies in using the fissionable materials such as U-235 to convert other more abundant, non-fissionable materials into a fissionable state. This is done to a limited extent in a LWR as neutron bombardment of the U-238 in the fuel converts some to Pu-239, which is fissionable. Uranium and plutonium can also be blended as a mixed oxide fuel (MOX) and used in combination with the more standard uranium fuel in Light Water Reactors. Doing so could eliminate the build up of plutonium stockpiles and conserve available uranium resources.

Uranium can also be blended with thorium, a more abundant, non-fissionable mineral than uranium and converted by fast neutron bombardment to U-233, which is fissionable. The LWR, however, is not designed to optimize conversion of these so called “fertile” fuels to fissionable form. The bombarding neutrons in a LWR are not energetic enough because they have been deliberately slowed to optimize the fissioning of U-235. Fabrication of fuels using plutonium or uranium 233 is not without technical challenges for the materials are quite hazardous.

4.2.2 Fuel Reprocessing

LWR fuel when “spent” and withdrawn from a reactor is still left with an appreciable amount of uranium and isotopes of plutonium that are also fissionable. Reprocessing such fissionable residues and reusing them to make fuel could extend the supply of fissionable materials considerably and ease the pressures on the global supply of U-235. Some nations do reprocess their spent fuel but the USA does not.

Reprocessing was successfully demonstrated in the United States in the mid 1970s but stopped in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The action was motivated politically by the perception that the strong position of the United States relative to non proliferation would be taken more seriously by other nations developing nuclear power if the United States would forego re-processing the spent fuel from its commercial nuclear power plants. The ban met no strong opposition by the U.S. nuclear industry because reprocessing and recycling of spent LWR fuel was seen as a non-economical endeavor.

This unilateral action by the United States had little effect on the international scene. Two major reprocessing facilities were built, one at Sellafield in the United Kingdom and the other at La Hague, France. These facilities are used by at least 12 nations to reprocess spent fuel. Japan is currently developing its own commercial reprocessing plant. While President Ronald Reagan in 1981 lifted the ban on reprocessing in the United States, interest in re-processing as a commercial venture never developed until recently.

The revived interest has been spurred by a number of converging energy-future related considerations that include:

• nuclear power as a moderator of the rate of global warming

• optimization of use of uranium as an energy source
• reduction in the amount of highly radioactive residuals of the fuel cycle requiring long-term safe disposal
• revival of interest in further development of the breeder reactor fuel cycle.

4.2.3 The Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR)

To optimize the conversion of the fertile materials, scientists designed the Fast Breeder Reactor. The FBR “breeds” fuel by producing more fissile material than it consumes. Its feasibility has been demonstrated. FBRs have been built in the USA, the UK, France, the former USSR, India and Japan. A prototype is under construction in China. An experimental FBR was built in Germany but never operated.

Despite this global advance in nuclear reactor technology, the breeder program has to date not been advanced by any nation as a mainline venture in nuclear power. The reasons range from safety to economics. Economics appears to have been the main deterrent to date. The same market forces that have made the fossil fuels, particularly coal, the fuel of choice, for electric power production, has kept the LWR as the reactor of choice for power development to date. This is likely to remain so until pressures on uranium supply provide an economic reason to change.

Reprocessing, however, to recover and use the fissionable materials is central to the breeder concept. With the decision by President Jimmy Carter to ban reprocessing in 1976, research and development in breeder reactor technology in the United States slowed dramatically and then stopped. Leadership in the field was ceded to other nations, notably Russia and France. Fortunately their work proceeded far enough to demonstrate not only the potential of the breeder concept but also some of the economic and technical challenges that lie ahead for large-scale applications. Yet, if a secure long-term energy future is to rest on nuclear energy, it must rest on the breeder, not the LWR.

While nuclear power offers the promise of a post-fossil fuel future, it will in the short term offer little hope for the transportation sector that is now so totally dependent on oil. Nuclear propulsion has been well developed by the Navy and could be adapted for ocean-going or mass ground transportation but the gasoline-fueled machines we know today are doomed to become relics of the past.

Widespread conversion to the hybrid car and the production of ethanol from vegetation can extend the available life time of such machines but the era of cheap oil is over and the future with limited supply and high cost is quite uncertain. Hydrogen generation using nuclear power may be the only practical route forward for the personal vehicle of the future, but the development, distribution and use of hydrogen for widespread use is yet a long-term possibility, not an assured reality.

5.0 Current Energy Policy

5.1 Department of Energy

Congress established the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1974 as a successor agency to the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA). Both of these agencies absorbed the energy research and development functions of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) established by Congress in 1954. Under the congressional oversight of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), AEC successfully developed the technology for harnessing the energy of the atom to the generation of electric power. The Naval Reactors (NR) program under Admiral Hyman Rickover was particularly successful.

The use of atomic energy that was a major focus of the AEC gave way to development of alternative fuels as the interest in commercial applications of atomic energy faltered in the 1970s. With the demise of the both the AEC and the JCAE, the USA lost its nuclear leadership role in the search for a long-term substitute for the fossil fuels. DOE maintained some nominal activity in the field of nuclear technology but re-focused its energy-related research and development energy activities on renewables and cleaner coal technologies. This general approach to our energy future has been central to the Department of Energy’s program throughout its existence.

Two notable course changes occurred. One was triggered by a large scale shutdown of the nation’s electrical grid and the other by passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

So far as national energy policy there was no clearly defined, long-term energy policy prior to 2005 other than reliance upon market forces to satisfy our needs.

5.2 Energy Policy Act of 2005

The passage of the Energy Policy Act was preceded by extensive legislative activity in response to a growing unease about the fragility of our power grids and our nation’s escalating dependence on foreign imports of oil and gas. Just a limited internet search of legislative measures proposed by members of the U.S. Congress prior to its enactment revealed many hundreds of initiatives. These included many subject-specific proposals and a few comprehensive approaches to the reduction of dependence upon foreign oil imports. The latter included S.228, S.2025, H.R. 4409 and H.R.3941.

These proposed bills were said to have been stimulated by concerns about the national security implications of our dependence upon foreign supply of oil. In reality they have serious implications relative to our economic health and prosperity as well, for without a strong economy our national security cannot be maintained. The effects of hurricane Katrina on our supply of gasoline and the politically motivated shutoff of gas by the Russia to its European neighbors attest to the kind of economic vulnerability energy shortages create.

Congressional deliberations in 2005 on our energy future culminated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.This Act has been characterized as “compromise” legislation, reflecting the multiplicity and diversity of interests involved. Measures dealt with some of the more immediate problems of supply but little to re-direct societal use patterns of oil and natural gas towards a more rational and secure long-term energy future. In particular, the auto industry of the USA was spared the mandatory task of increasing efficiency standards of its passenger vehicles and trucks. Complaints to my own senators as to its inadequacy brought a response to the effect that the good in the Act justified its support.

One of the more positive results of the Act is the resurgence of interest in nuclear power both as a potential solution to the global warming problem and as a promising long-term alternative to fossil fuels for electric power generation. Under provisions of the Energy Act of 2005, research on new re-processing methodology has begun and interest in the Breeder Reactor revived.

The Bush Administration in early 2006 announced a new energy initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) . The GNEP is said to be a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, encourage clean development around the world, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, and improve the environment. Support for several new demonstration nuclear power projects and a nuclear hydrogen initiative is a part of the GNEP.

In keeping with the GNEP initiative, the Department of Energy in February 2006 signed an agreement with France and Japan to work cooperatively on the further development of Breeder Reactor technology. DOE’s FY 2007 Budget Request shows $632.7 million for the programs of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology with approximately 2/3 of that budget proposed for the GNEP initiative and associated projects. It has been estimated that the GNEP initiative could cost about $15 billion dollars over approximately 13 years.

6.0 Where to From Here

6.1 Recognize and Define the Problem

The first step towards a solution to a problem is to recognize that it exists. As a nation, we have not yet been willing to admit that our supply of fossil fuels and indeed those of the globe are finite, dwindling and under serious stress as global demands escalate. We need to accept the fact that we have been less than frugal in uses of our own supplies and are now dangerously depending upon foreign supplies to sustain bad use patterns. We need to resolve to do better and proceed expeditiously to move forward.

The precise time frame within which solutions must be found is uncertain because the data on global reserves is not well known nor can one project with certainty the rate of neither depletion nor the growth in demand. Yet the time and efforts required to formulate a path forward and to implement both technical and political solutions argue for the formation of a national plan as soon as possible, based upon what is known.

Any path forward of necessity will require both a near-term and a far-term set of goals. It is simply not feasible to effect immediate course change in what has evolved as normal use patterns over the last century. Like a large, heavily loaded ship in ocean waters, it takes time after a hard turn of the rudders to cause course change, but it is time now for the “hard over”!

6.2 Decide How Best to Proceed

Surely as a nation we can and must do something more effective than our leadership has accomplished to date. Some in Congress seem to be well counseled by staff but the current flurry of Congressional proposals to soften the consumer concerns about gasoline prices, such as the $100 rebate and the difficulties the Congressional leadership had in 2005 to develop a compromise energy bill hardly provide confidence that either for a long-term or short-term program that Congress is equipped with either the scientific and technical expertise needed or the will to perform this task.

Congress did establish the Department of Energy in 1974 to look to our future energy needs and to advise Congress accordingly. However, the current Secretary of Energy [Samuel W. Bodman] is one of the few persons with scientific backgrounds that have led the agency since its establishment. In any case, this agency like other cabinet-level agencies does not set policy; it implements that emanating from the White House. Whether just or unjust, the current energy policy as formulated early in this current administration has been under criticism for alleged undue influence of oil interests. Further the resistance of past administrations to pressures to increase fuel efficiency standards is taken as the strong influence of the auto industries.

As a result, any plan forward to be widely acceptable will need to show an absolute necessity for the sacrifices and societal costs entailed and no undue influence by those with obvious conflicts of interest. Congressmen have stressed the need for bi-partisanship. What our energy future planning needs is more statesmanship not partisanship!

The following are offered as ideas:

6.2.1 For the Near Term (10-15 years)

We need to accept the fact that the era of cheap oil is over and act accordingly. Conservation as a way of reducing dependence on foreign oil was encouraged through a tax deduction for owners of hybrid vehicles but nothing dramatic was legislated by the Energy Act of 2005 to force a major course correction in auto designs or the purchasing habits of the buying public. Such course correction appears to have been left to market forces over which our political leadership chose to exert minimal pressures for change.

1. Raise Gas Efficiency Standards:

   As the first order, stronger Government intervention is needed to expedite the transition of the current fleet of passenger automobiles and trucks to much more fuel-efficient vehicles. Raising the gas efficiency standards is an immediate measure that can and should be taken. Reportedly, a National Academy study in 2001 concluded that a standard of 33 mpg was feasible and would not compromise safety. However, allowing this transition to take until 2025, as suggested – 19 years – does not appear to be in keeping with the urgency of the situation, nor should it be necessary.

2. Add Surcharges on High Powered Personal Vehicles

   While the escalating cost of gasoline at the pump has begun to influence the purchase of high-powered personal vehicles, the switch to the hybrids or the higher efficiency autos remains slow relative to the sales of autos as a whole, even though Congress offered tax incentives to purchasers of hybrids to encourage such shift. Further action-forcing measures are required. For example, substantial tax surcharges on new purchases of high-horsepower autos and a phase-in of such charges on license renewals of high-horsepower autos over a 10-year period.

   The objective should be to have an entire new fleet of substantially more fuel efficient autos on the roads within 10-15 years. Such an interval would allow time for return of investment by owners on cars they now own and allow transition time for auto manufacturers to set up new production lines.

3. Devise a Graduated Carbon Tax

   The unlimited access to gasoline and energy for home heating (oil, gas, electricity) that wealth now enables drives costs of these energy sources upward to the detriment of those less endowed. A case can be made that owners of the “McMansions” of our day, like the high-powered personal vehicles, are disproportionately drawing upon energy sources that are finite and dwindling. In so doing they are contributing to the forces that cause fuel price increases.

   Escalating fuel prices are causing significant stress on those less able to pay. The amounts being allocated by the Federal government in the way of assistance for home heating continues to increase as more people enter that pool.

   Energy-related taxes are not new. In addition to surcharges such as those suggested above, energy taxes based upon horsepower of power boats and mobile homes, and square footage of homes should be considered. Such surcharges, as well as those deriving from surcharges on high-powered autos should be dedicated

   • to the assistance of those most severely impacted by high prices and
   • the research for alternatives to the fossil fuels.

   Relative to a carbon tax, The Washington Post recently noted that:

   Nobody is going to advocate a carbon tax that would push fuel prices higher than they are already. But it would make sense to adopt a sliding scale that would kick in when oil prices fell below a certain level.

   Perhaps this is the political reality of our situation, at least until a more fuel-efficient fleet of personal vehicles is in place and the cost per mile of travel drops. Yet, we are in a situation when all options should be put on the table.

4. Reallocate Gas Pump Taxes

   A case can be made for a re-orientation of the programs supported by the Federal taxes collected from gas and oil consumption to provide for more electric powered mass transportation systems and research on alternative fuels such as hydrogen and less for new highway construction. Building new roads for faster and bigger vehicles seems counter-productive to conservation of vital oil supplies

5. Foster Greater Public Awareness

   A national program for achieving much greater understanding by the public of the global energy issue is essential. Years ago the Atomic Energy Commission had a public education program that reached out to schools and centers of higher learning. Educational materials in readable booklet form were developed and distributed. Traveling exhibits were taken to communities far and wide. A program comparable to that of the Space Program kept a public informed. Some similar program is needed relative to our energy situation now and in the future.

6. Re-look at Energy Regulation

   The economic forces of supply and demand have worked reasonably well in the energy sector during the era when supplies were plentiful and competition maintained costs to consumers manageable for the many, but we are entering another era when our fossil energy sources no longer fit this model.

   The dramatic rise recently in costs to consumers of gasoline, heating fuels and electricity are already causing financial stress for many in our society who cannot easily afford the prices. Yet the suppliers of these commodities are reporting record profits.

   Reasonable stability either in supply or price cannot be assured, creating a general sense of unease about the future. People feel threatened by instability and uncertainty. What appears to be a situation calling for more government regulation has in fact been subject to less regulation and more subsidization to sustain the status quo.

   For example, just a few years ago, states moved to de-regulate the suppliers of electricity. The rationale was the premise that the market forces created by competition would result in less costs to consumers and greater reliability in service. In fact what has occurred is a dramatic increase in cost of electric power. With only 3% of our U.S. electricity generated by oil and 16% by natural gas, it is difficult to understand the sharp increase. Whether this result is reversible or how it might be reversed to good advantage is not known to the paying public. Although this may be largely a state issue, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has played a key role in this matter. Individual citizens lack the expertise, time and organization to act effectively on their own behalf. They must look to the government to protect their vital interests.

   Under the premise that what government has done, government can undo, corrective action is merited with respect to regulating electric energy. Furthermore consideration needs to be given as to how much of the total energy sector should be subject to regulation in the public interest. Obviously, the U.S cannot regulate a global market but it may be able through regulation to more effectively control the domestic market for the common good.

6.2.2 For the Longer Term:

We must move away from dependence on fossil fuels as an energy source and husband their uses for purposes for which they are more critically needed.

1. Establish a Joint Congressional Committee on Energy (JCCE)

   Congress might better bring its efforts to bear on addressing our long-term energy needs through a Joint Congressional Committee on Energy (JCCE). Such a group could serve to integrate the activities carried on now by a multiple set of Congressional Committees all with somewhat different views and objectives. Such a successful group was formed years ago as the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to oversee the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

2. Develop a Global Approach to a Global Issue

   Whatever the USA does will affect other nations as well. The global energy market is under stress. As global energy supplies dwindle and global demand increases, one can expect this stress level to increase. There is need for stronger and more comprehensive government intervention to moderate market forces in the short term and to force a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels in the long term. Further, the global implications of the impending situation will require a global approach to sharing of energy technology and energy supplies on a level never before attempted. The disproportionate use of energy by the USA that has marked the past century is not likely to be acceptable to nations also striving for better lifestyles for their people.

   Dwindling supplies and increased global demands are forces that will create tensions that are fraught with peril, as nations compete for supply. They will compete peaceably at first, to maintain or improve lifestyles; and then fight, if need be, to survive.

   The GNEP initiative is promising but such global initiatives will require much more funding if progress in pace with global needs for fossil alternatives is to be reasonably assured. Although the concept of a carbon tax may not yet be politically and socially acceptable, the funding of such initiatives needs to be a part of the dialogue from which any plan for the future evolves.

   In principle every user of a fossil fuel should be paying some costs for development of an alternative energy source for those who will have need for an alternative once the fossil fuels become exhausted.

   As pointed out recently in an article in the Washington Post, an International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in 1974 as a counter to OPEC and has, through its long time involvement with this issue, “the potential to become the effective advocate and coordinator for oil-importing countries that U.S officials saw at the outset.”

   Whether it is the IEA or some equivalent, some form of international forum for dialogue and negotiation between suppliers and consumers is a must.

3. A National Commission on Our Energy Future

   Congress should move expeditiously to create a National Commission on Our Energy Future to help formulate a comprehensive long-term strategic plan. Such a Commission might be modeled after the National Commission on the Terrorist Attack on the U.S. (the 9/11 Commission).

   The difficulty Congressional leadership had in coming up with its Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the controversy the current administration developed by its closed strategic planning on energy suggest that an approach other than Congressional hearings be taken to help define a long-term path forward.

   The concept of the independent National Commission has served well in formulating recommendations on military base closings and other complex issues such as the re-structuring of the Security Intelligence Agencies of our government. The findings of such a commission and the media coverage of them would go a long way to educate the public of the global outlook on energy both near term and longer term and the efforts the government will be taking to better ensure the future for them and generations to come.

   Given the perception of the general public that prices are the results of price gouging rather than the market competition for dwindling supplies of oil and gas, our national leadership is challenged to develop and educate its constituency as to the facts. Fact finding and public education will be no small chore accomplished by a few hearings to allow venting of outrage and the dispelling of apprehension. Congress will find itself probing an issue where existing estimates on reserves are unreliable , and hence a case for urgency may be difficult to establish.

   As reported by Matthew R. Simmons in his book, Twilight in the Desert, reliable data have not been forthcoming for many years from OPEC suppliers. Relative to Saudi Arabia with its giant fields that play a crucial role in the global demand/supply balance, Simmons observes that:

   The reality of the oil business is still the same in 2005 as it was decades ago. The task of assessing proven reserves in any reservoir is elaborate, difficult, and problematic, relying on, as it must, on data gathered by remote sensing and a lot of assumptions.

   The fluid volumes being estimated are never visible or physically present, and the whole process is plagued by numerous variables that cannot be controlled. The bottom line on Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves is that the real number is hidden in obscurity.

   Uncertainty notwithstanding, the seriousness of the situation and the long lead time necessary to find a secure path forward demand that action be undertaken expeditiously, based upon the best information that can be gathered in the near term. How best to develop such information and a plan forward in keeping with findings, is the most pressing task.

4. Nationalization of Our Domestic Sources of Oil and Gas

   As drastic and radical such a thought might be, the concept should be considered.

   All possibilities for dealing with these vital energy sources that may be available for perhaps a century at most should be ”put on the table.” One can envision a day when the USA must participate in international convocations to barter for a share of greatly diminished supplies. Most major supply sources today are nationalized.

   Will the USA be disadvantaged by not being nationalized? What priority, if any, will the citizenry of the USA have relative to our domestic supply? How long are we willing to allow market forces to determine access to our domestic supplies?

   One can argue that these times are too far in the future to worry about now; but, for those with great grandchildren, that future is not far off. It certainly is a more pressing issue than the preoccupation our scientists and politicians have about a 10,000-year criteria for disposal of high-level radioactive wastes.

5. Identification and Qualification of Future Energy Production Sites.

   If the past history is indicative of the future, one should anticipate the difficulty in siting, constructing and operating major energy facilities in the future – whether they are nuclear, hydrogen, oil, natural gas or otherwise – for they must compete for the land, water and other resources required to build and operate them.

   The Federal Government should fund a national study of potential sites for locating the major energy facilities for which this nation will need in the next 50 years as a minimum, with initial evaluation of locations on Federal lands.

   The concept of energy parks such as once supported the weapons program at Savannah River and Hanford are cases in point, as is the Palo Verde nuclear power station in Arizona. These locations are located near the water supplies essential for operation. Without study of power plant needs versus other uses of water, the question of future capacity cannot be answered. Geological and other factors such as proximity to population centers will also limit siting potential.

   Before one assumes that developing breeder technology and hydrogen generators are all that is needed, the issue of where one could safely put them needs also to be addressed. Studies of this type were done a number of years ago by the author of this paper for the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Atomic Energy Authority of Spain. These studies revealed the importance that water played in support of the agricultural and industrial activities so important to the economic health of the regions and the need for government to make the equitable allocation among the competing interests. All major water resources in the U.S are facing increased competitive use pressures.

6. Re-energize the Sustainability Initiative

   Some of the greatest thinkers of our times, such as Lester Brown, and his predecessors at Resources for the Future have been heralding the message that we have a planet in trouble and a civilization at peril. This is the result of two major factors – too many people in places where they cannot sustain themselves, and less than optimum uses of the resources and the environment in which we abide. This is an issue of long standing and much debate. For example, a number of years ago the Club of Rome issued an attention gathering report on the implications of escalating population growth on global capacity to sustain it. [The Limits to Growth.]

   The U.S. and other industrialized nations in Europe are facing economic pressures as those in lands already exhausted of capacity to sustain them press to migrate to where life is more promising. Technological advances have historically altered the capacity factor for population influx but the margins for accommodation remain largely unpredictable. They shift with employment and climatic conditions.

   Compassion for the less fortunate and the relative abundance evident in the US makes our country a prime attraction for the underprivileged of the world. In attempting to deal with this issue, the concept of “sustainability” has been advanced as the most enlightened way to plan the economic growth and resource sharing that population growth and improved lifestyles require. The concept of sustainability has been partially advanced in the US by various Executive Orders of the President in connection with energy management and protection of the environment. Similar actions have been taken by various states.

   However the systematic consideration of the sustainable nature of major governmental actions taken with the intent to benefit recipients whether domestic or foreign is not built into the decision-making process. Such action might well be considered, including a reappraisal of the U.S. position relative to international efforts to achieve sustainability at a humane level through population control measures.

Joseph DiNunno
May 14, 2006

Works cited:

Brown, Lester R. Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. W.W. Norton & Co. 2006. online version]

Hubbert, M. King. ”Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels, American Petroleum Institute Spring Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, March 7-9, 1956. (online text in PDF)]

Hubbert, M. King. “Energy Resources,” chapter 8 in Resources and Man. National Academy of Sciences. 1969. (online text in PDF).

Kunstler, James Howard. The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. Grove/Atlantic. 2005.

Lovins, Amory B. Winning the Oil End Game. Rocky Mountain Institute. 2004. (online version).

Meadows, Donella H. et al. Limits to Growth. Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Commissioned by the Club of Rome in 1972. Updated in a 2004 edition.

Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert. John Wiley & Sons. 2005.