Green Alternatives and National Energy Strategy: The Facts behind the Headlines

• 4 Green Energy Sources
• Chapter
• Johns Hopkins University Press
• pp. 109-147
• View Citation
• Additional Information

CHAPTER 1

Conventional Energy Sources

The immediate goals of our national energy strategy should be to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, to move away from dependence on limited natural resources and toward renewable sources, and to reduce emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. The chapters of this book discuss what we can do with vehicles to achieve these goals and what novel or alternative sources of energy are available. To understand the practicality and effects of these alternatives, one must first understand the current situation with regard to our major conventional energy sources. By major conventional energy sources, I mean oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. I discuss alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric, in chapter 4.

US Energy Consumption

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides details of US consumption of primary and secondary energy sources.¹ By primary energy source, I mean energy that we get directly from nature: oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium. In contrast, a secondary energy source is one that we manufacture from a primary source. In particular, we generate electricity by burning some primary fuel, most commonly coal and natural gas. The unit of energy quad, short for quadrillion British thermal units (Btu),² is widely used in the energy industry but is probably unfamiliar to readers outside the industry. I express some numbers in quads to simplify comparisons with the energy literature, but the kilowatt-hour (kWh), a standard unit of electrical energy, is more useful for this book because of its focus on electric cars and my belief that electricity will eventually become the dominant source of energy for the consumer.

Table 1.1 and figure 1.1 show our annual consumption of energy and the percentage of our annual consumption provided by each primary source. More important, the table also shows the amount of each primary source consumed. We measure petroleum in barrels (42 gallons per barrel); natural gas in cubic feet, usually in trillions of cubic feet (Tcf); coal in short tons;³ and nuclear reactor fuel in pounds of uranium oxide. The raw amount figures are useful as reference points when we discuss the effect of different automobile fuels on national resource usage and pollution emission.

Renewable energy sources, which contribute very little to the overall energy supply, are further broken down as shown in table 1.2 and the bar graph on the right-hand side of figure 1.1. Hydroelectric dams and biomass make up most of the renewable sources at the current time. The current darlings of renewable energy sources, solar and wind, are now insignificant sources of electricity. I discuss in chapter 4 whether they and geothermal and hydroelectric power can become major contributors.

TABLE 1.1 US Consumption of Primary Energy Sources, 2008

FIGURE 1.1 US Consumption of Energy by Source, 2008. Total US energy consumption was 99.1 quads (29 trillion kWh) in 2008. Consumption of renewable sources was 7.3 quads (2.1 trillion kWh). The bar chart at right shows percentages of renewable energy obtained from each source.

Source: EIA, “Annual Energy Review, 2009,” table 1.3, “Primary Energy Consumption by Source, 1949–2009,” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html.

These tables show the ultimate sources of our energy. They do not indicate where our energy goes. This is shown in figure 1.2.

This figure shows where energy is consumed: transportation, industry, residential and commercial, and electric power. It summarizes a great deal of data and it takes a little effort to understand. The ellipses on the left list the primary energy sources and how much each contributes to overall US consumption. For example, coal provided 22.5 quads of the 99.1-quad total energy consumption in 2008. The rectangles on the right show usage by sector. For example, electric power generators consume 40.1 quads of the 99.1-quad total. The numbers at each end of the lines connecting the ellipses and rectangles indicate the percentage of each source that goes to each sector and the percentage of each sector of consumption supplied by each source. For example, the number 91 near the coal ellipse on the line from coal to electric power indicates that 91% of our coal goes to generating electricity. The rest of coal goes to industry and home heating. The number 51 on the other end of the same line indicates that 51% of electricity is generated using coal. The line connecting the Nuclear ellipse to the Electric Power Generation rectangle indicates that all nuclear power goes to generating electricity, while 21% of our electricity comes from nuclear power.

TABLE 1.2 US Consumption of Renewable Energy Sources, 2008

These tables and figures tell almost everything one needs to know about our consumption of energy-related natural resources, but they do not give the details of our consumption of secondary energy sources—gasoline, diesel, and electricity—which are important sources of energy for the end consumer but which are manufactured from primary natural resources, such as oil and coal. Secondary energy consumption is shown in table 1.3. These data points will become important in chapter 3, where I discuss alternative vehicles.

The reader should beware numbers dealing with consumption of electricity. Table 1.3 shows 4.1 trillion kWh (14 quads) of electricity consumed by the end user. Figure 1.2 shows 11.8 trillion kWh (40.1 quads) of primary energy source consumed to produce electricity. The numbers are different because the usual method of generating electricity, burning a fuel to generate heat that drives a steam turbine that drives a generator, is only about one-third efficient on average. That is, it takes 11.8 trillion kWh of raw resources to produce 4.1 trillion kWh of electric power delivered to the consumer. (Renewable sources of electricity—hydro, geothermal, solar, and wind power—have different issues. Here we are concerned with thermal power plants and the consumption of primary fuels and production of pollution and greenhouse gases.) When reading the literature, one must be clear as to whether the consumption numbers mean consumption of electricity by the consumer or consumption of raw resources by the power station generating the electricity. I will be careful to make that distinction whenever I refer to electricity. Generating electricity with turbines is inherently inefficient.

FIGURE 1.2 US Energy Sources versus Consumption Sectors, 2008. The ellipses on the left list the primary energy sources and how much each contributes in quads to overall US consumption. The rectangles on the right show usage by sector. The numbers beside the lines connecting ellipses and rectangles indicate the percentage of each source that goes to each sector of consumption (the numbers near the ellipses) and the percentage of each sector supplied by each source (the numbers near the circles). The differing total values on the left and right reflect independent rounding.

Source: Redrawn from illustration at EIA, “Annual Energy Review, 2009,” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html.

TABLE 1.3 US Consumption of Secondary Energy Sources, 2008

US Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air pollution has been a serious health concern ever since the industrial revolution. The set of specific pollutants we focus on changes with the decades. Currently, the primary concern is with greenhouse gases because of their effect on global warming. Because of this concern, I emphasize greenhouse gases, which make up a subset of air pollution.⁴ Nonetheless, I discuss traditional pollution later in this chapter.

I am interested in greenhouse gases because of their role in producing global warming. There has been a great deal of discussion of global warming: whether or not the planet’s average temperature is rising and whether or not the temperature increase is due to man’s industrial activity. As of this writing, there is a consensus that global warming is real and man’s production of greenhouse gases is partially responsible. This might change in the future, but reducing greenhouse gases to protect the planet and ourselves is a worthy goal in any case.

The greenhouse gases considered to cause global warming are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and gases with high global warming potential (GWP), such as hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆). The amount of gas produced is expressed by weight in million metric tons (MMt). Carbon dioxide is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and it is customary to tabulate emissions of the other greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent, that is, the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same effect as the actual amount of the particular gas. Total US greenhouse gas emission in 2007 was 7,282.4 MMt. Over 80% was CO₂. The rest was methane, nitrous oxide, and high-GWP gases.⁵

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change establishes the GWP factor for each gas.⁶ For example, the GWP factor for nitrous oxide is 298, which means that a metric ton of nitrous oxide has the same effect on global warming as 298 metric tons of carbon dioxide. One of the ironies of trying to manipulate nature is that HFCs, which were introduced in the 1990s to replace the ozone-layer-depleting gases then used in air conditioners, refrigeration, and insulating foam, have turned out to be high-GWP gases and more damaging to the environment than the gases they replaced.⁷

Figure 1.3 shows the US emissions from individual sources of energy in 2007. Total emissions amounted to 7,282 MMt of CO₂. Oil accounted for 2,580 MMt, and generating electricity was responsible for 2,433 MMt. Fertilizer, livestock flatulence, and landfills (FLL) is methane produced by agriculture, farming livestock, and human garbage landfills (not human sewage). The “other” category includes greenhouse gases other than CO₂ and methane and emissions from various industrial processes.

FIGURE 1.3 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source, 2007 (MMt of carbon dioxide equivalent). Total annual emissions were 7,282 MMt. Emissions from oil totaled 2,580 MMt, split among diesel, gasoline, and other products. Generating electricity consumed virtually all coal, 30% of natural gas, and 2% of oil and produced a third of all greenhouse gas emissions (2,433 MMt). Motor fuel—gasoline and diesel combined—produced less than a quarter of the total. Generating electricity in power plants is a much greater source of greenhouse gases than automobiles (1,652 MMt). Fertilizer, livestock flatulence, and landfills (FLL) produced almost 10% of the greenhouse gases, nearly twice the amount produced by diesel fuel. One might argue that we could do more for the environment by reducing the use of fertilizer in farming and by reducing consumption of meat and dairy than by improving diesel engines.

Source: EIA, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report,” December 2008, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg08rpt/index.html.

Figure 1.3 illustrates three very interesting points. First, generating electricity produces twice the CO₂ that gasoline does for the same amount of useful energy. Perhaps we should be more concerned with electric power plants than with automobiles, at least where CO₂ is concerned. Second, natural gas is responsible for more total greenhouse gas than gasoline, though slightly less than gasoline and diesel combined. This is because of the large amount of natural gas consumed rather than because of any inherent “dirtiness.” Finally, when we look at FLL, we see that farming and processing human garbage, somewhat surprisingly, generate more greenhouse gas than does burning diesel fuel. As populations grow, the amount of such gas will increase. Based on these data, one might argue that shifting to organic farming and vegetarianism would have greater positive effect on global warming than taking all the diesel cars off the road. I am not suggesting that we all become vegetarians, but I want to introduce the idea that we sometimes are short sighted and concentrate on issues other than the main problem. In the same vein, underground coal-seam fires and peat fires come to mind as unexpected nonindustrial sources of greenhouse gases. Underground coal-seam fires in China produce almost as much CO₂ as all the diesel cars in the United States. In Indonesia, deforestation has led to drying out of the peat cover, which in turn has led to peat fires. Peat fires in Indonesia in 2006 produced more CO₂ than US gasoline and diesel use combined.⁸

Figure 1.4 shows the contribution of the main fuels to greenhouse gases in relationship to the energy we get from them, that is, pounds of greenhouse gas per 1,000 kWh of energy extracted. At one end of the spectrum of major fossil fuels, natural gas is clearly the cleanest source of energy. Renewable resources, such as wind and solar power, are the cleanest of all, but among fossil fuels, natural gas is the winner. At the other end of the fossil-fuel spectrum, coal produces almost twice the greenhouse gas that natural gas does for the same energy content. Compounding the problem is that almost all coal is used to generate electricity and that coal-fired turbine generators convert only about a third of the energy in coal into electricity. Not only does coal produce more pollution than other fuels, more of it is needed to generate electricity than if it were used directly for heating. The overall effect is that coal produces a lot of pollution for the amount of useful electrical energy it produces.

FIGURE 1.4 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Energy Content, 2007. Natural gas clearly produces the least greenhouse gas, diesel is slightly better than gasoline, and coal is almost twice as polluting as natural gas. Note that the numbers for automobile fuels are not directly indicative of how much pollution is emitted per mile of driving. Electricity is by far the most polluting energy source. At present, most of our electricity is generated from coal, the most polluting fossil fuel we have, and power plant turbines are only one-third efficient.

Source: EIA, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report,” December 2008, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg08rpt/index.html.

Conventional wisdom says that electricity is exceptionally clean and pollution-free. Indeed, this is one of the points in favor of electric cars. However, generating electricity currently contributes a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, half again as much as gasoline and diesel use combined. Although using electricity for vehicle propulsion is very clean, generating the electricity is very dirty. If one wants to go after the leading single source of greenhouse gases, one should go after coal-fired electric power plants rather than gasoline-burning automobiles. Of course, that would do nothing for reducing demand for gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil.

TABLE 1.4 Pollution by Energy Content of Fossil Fuels

Finally, I should mention pollution other than greenhouse gases and CO₂. Table 1.4 shows the pollution, including the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, emitted by fossil fuels. The first thing to notice is that amounts of pollutants are much smaller than amounts of CO₂, 100 to 1 or 1,000 to 1. The most important point to note is how much more polluting coal is than natural gas (oil is between the two). Natural gas is, indeed, much cleaner than either oil or coal.

Petroleum

Petroleum—oil, crude, black gold—is the main concern for several reasons. Cars and trucks are almost all powered by gasoline and to a lesser degree by diesel, and both come from petroleum. The United States imports over half of its oil, and gasoline and diesel are major sources of pollution and greenhouse gases.

People have known about and used petroleum (from the Latin: petr, or rock, and oleum, or oil, i.e., rock oil) for centuries.⁹ In ancient times, Babylon used asphalt for construction, and Persia used petroleum for medicines and lighting. The Chinese drilled wells to obtain petroleum to use as a fuel to evaporate water and obtain salt. Around the ninth century, Arabs and Persians used it for lighting and military applications.

One major line in the development of the petroleum industry involved lighting. People discovered how to refine kerosene from coal around 1850 and from petroleum shortly thereafter. Almost simultaneously, commercial development of oil started in Romania in 1857, followed by Canada in 1858, and the United States in 1859, when oil was discovered at Titusville, Pennsylvania. Petroleum had become abundantly available, and the demand for kerosene and oil for lamps drove early development. Among other things, these discoveries decreased the demand for whale oil and probably saved several whale species from extinction.

A second line of development started in the mid-nineteenth century, when Western Europe started synthesizing chemicals that could substitute for natural products. Then, in World War I, the British learned how to extract benzene and toluene from oil. These are important feedstocks for the petrochemical industry. Since then, the petrochemical industry has grown to such an extent that modern civilization depends on the synthesized materials. The petrochemical industry provides plastics, soaps, detergents, solvents, paints, medicines, fertilizer, pesticides, explosives, synthetic fibers like nylon and polyester, synthetic rubber, flooring, and insulating materials.

A third line of development was automobile fuel. While early automobiles were propelled by pedal power, hydrogen and oxygen internal combustion engines, steam, and even electricity, the discovery of petroleum and the development of inexpensive gasoline and diesel fuels spurred demand for vehicles and fuels. Gasoline and diesel became the major products of crude oil.

Oil Refining

Petroleum contains hydrocarbons and other organic compounds. Hydrocarbons, which are molecules consisting of hydrogen and carbon, become useful products. The other organics, such as nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur compounds, are pollutants, although they may be useful for some products. Different hydrocarbon molecules have different useful properties, different numbers of carbon atoms per molecule, and different evaporation temperatures. The modern refining process takes advantage of the different evaporation temperatures to separate out the different “fractions” and isolate the desired hydrocarbon molecules.¹⁰ The fundamental process in refining a barrel of crude is selectively and sequentially boiling off the different hydrocarbons. First come various gases, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), then gasoline, then diesel, then several different fuel oils (heating oil, fuel oil, jet fuel, etc.), and finally other products that are primarily feedstock for the petrochemical industry, which gives us such things as plastics and pharmaceuticals. This is not the end of the processing. The gasoline that comes out of the distillation process, “straight run” gasoline, is of relatively poor quality. Further “cracking” (breaking up longer hydrocarbon chains into shorter chains and straight chains into branched chains) is required to produce high-quality gasoline. By the end of the refining process, each 42-gallon barrel of oil becomes a little over 44 gallons of product. This might seem strange, but normal refining processes involve cracking long-hydrocarbon-chain molecules into shorter-chain molecules, making more but less-dense molecules. Figure 1.5 shows the breakdown of refining in the United States.

Figure 1.5 illustrates a very important point. Petroleum is a mixture of numerous different hydrocarbon molecules, and the refining process simply separates the different components. Refining does not convert one hydrocarbon molecule into another. This has two implications for us. First, two-thirds of a barrel of oil is gasoline or diesel, and the remaining one-third becomes other products that are essential to modern society, such as fuel oil, lubricating oil, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Eliminating demand for gasoline and diesel would not reduce demand for oil because we would still need the other products. Gasoline and the other products are not interchangeable. You cannot convert gasoline into petrochemical feedstock, for example. To eliminate demand for oil, we need to find replacements for fuel oil, plastics, and fertilizer, among other things. Second, the amounts of gasoline and diesel in petroleum are relatively fixed. Conventional wisdom extols the desirability of diesel engines over gasoline engines because diesel engines are more efficient. Shifting to diesel results in consumption of fewer gallons of automobile fuel, but because a barrel of crude oil contains less diesel fuel than gasoline, demand for petroleum might actually increase as a result of a general shift to diesel fuel. I return to this subject in chapter 3.

FIGURE 1.5 Products from US Petroleum Refineries, 2008. Each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil becomes 44 gallons of product during the refining process. The percentages of various products depend on the mix of crude oils and adjustments to the refining process. Each barrel of oil yields about twice as much gasoline as diesel fuel. About 16% of each barrel becomes nonfuel products such as plastics and pharmaceuticals. Note that the percentages change slightly from year to year.

Source: EIA, “Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products Explained,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy explained/index.cfm?page=oil_home.

Not all petroleum is equal. Crude is categorized by where it comes from (e.g., West Texas), its density (light or heavy), and its sulfur content (“sweet crude” does not contain sulfur; “sour crude” does). Location is important because it affects transportation costs and control by foreign governments. Density is important because light crude is easier to transport and pump and contains more hydrocarbons (particularly gasoline) than heavy crude does. Sweetness is important because sour crude presents more severe environmental issues and requires more processing to minimize pollutants. At a more detailed level, the amount of gasoline (as well as other fractions) in a barrel of crude varies with the country of origin. With basic refinery processing, a barrel of sweet light crude produces about 30% gasoline. By contrast, a barrel of heavy sour crude yields about 14% gasoline, but Venezuelan crude produces only about 5% gasoline. Venezuelan crude is good for fuel oil and heating oil but is not a good source of gasoline. Perhaps this is why Hugo Chavez, through US-incorporated but Venezuelan-owned CITGO Corporation, can give away heating oil to the US poor. US refineries are yielding about 41% gasoline per barrel because of the mix of crudes they process and the extensive postdistillation processing (cracking, reforming, etc.), which can greatly improve yields but involves increased complexity and cost. Refineries in Europe operate with a different mix of input crudes and different processing methods because Europe requires more diesel fuel than the United States does. European refineries produce about the same percentage of petrochemical feedstocks and LPG as do US refineries, but the Europeans produce more fuel oil and diesel and less gasoline than do the Americans. While about 70% of the combined US and European production of gasoline comes from the United States, Europe accounts for about 60% of the combined production of diesel.

The single most important reason for the differences between outputs from US and European refineries is the mix of crude oils going into the refineries. We need an active international trade in crude oil to provide the desired mix of petroleum for our refineries, which allows them to match the range of products to the range of US demand. We need active trade in petroleum products to compensate for remaining mismatch between refinery output and demand. We will need to trade and be dependent on foreign oil to some degree for as long as we need petroleum products.

Production, Consumption, and Imports

US annual consumption of petroleum is 7.1 billion barrels. A primary concern is that US imports of crude amount to 66% of consumption. How did we get into the position of importing so much oil?

US demand for oil has steadily increased for the past hundred years (fig. 1.6). The first line in figure 1.6 shows US crude-oil production. Production of domestic crude oil grew smoothly until 1971 and has been declining ever since. The second line shows imports. The United States has had to import more oil each year since 1971 to balance increasing demand with decreasing domestic production. Imports were insignificant before the 1940s and increased slowly and slightly in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Imports started increasing markedly around 1971, plummeted around 1977, and started increasing again in 1985. The 1973 Arab oil embargo in retaliation against the United States for supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur war and the 1979 oil crisis are partially responsible for the volatility around 1980. Note the sharp increase in imports in the decade before the embargo. One has to wonder if the embargo had more to do with the unreasonable increase in US demand for foreign oil than with our support for Israel. In any case, the growth in US imports returned to a more moderate rate after the embargo. The third line in the figure shows demand. This is actually what the EIA calls “Refinery and Blender Net Input of Crude Oil” (i.e., the crude oil and refined product that goes into the US production process). Bear in mind that this includes both domestically produced and imported crude. Data are not available prior to 1980, but a little thought shows that this is unimportant. Prior to 1971, imports were quite small, and domestic production of crude was a good measure of total consumption. As imports grew, domestic production became less indicative of total consumption, and refinery input, the demand graph, became a better measure. From 1981 on, the data for refinery input have been a good measure of total consumption.

Almost half of the oil we import comes from the twelve member nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC): Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. We also import moderate amounts of oil from Canada, Mexico, the Virgin Islands, and Russia (fig. 1.7) and smaller amounts of oil from seventy-eight other non-OPEC countries. Conventional wisdom seems to be that well over half of our oil comes from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. This just is not true. It is true that 66% of our oil is imported, but less than half of that comes from OPEC, and not all of that comes from the Middle East. In terms of total oil consumption, not just imports, 31% comes from OPEC, 12% comes from the Middle East, and less than 8% comes from Saudi Arabia.

FIGURE 1.6 US Oil Production, Demand, and Imports. Demand for oil has increased steadily for the past hundred years. Domestic production kept pace with demand until about 1970, with almost no imports of foreign oil. Domestic production has declined steadily since 1970. Continued steady growth in demand has required steady growth in foreign imports.

Sources: Production: EIA, Petroleum Navigator, “US Field Production of Crude Oil,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm. Imports: EIA, Petroleum Navigator, “Annual US Imports of Crude Oil,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrimus1a.htm. Consumption: EIA, Petroleum Navigator, “Annual US Product Supplied of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS1&f=A.

FIGURE 1.7 US Oil Imports by Country, 2008. The United States imports 66% of its oil. About half of our imported oil (31% of US consumption) comes from OPEC.

Source: Percentages calculated from EIA, Petroleum Navigator, “US Imports by Country of Origin,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm.

Reserves

The next question is, how long will oil last? Perhaps more to the point, how much oil is there? That is, how large are the oil reserves? There is great discussion and disagreement over this question, and we will get to some of the issues shortly.

Domestic proved reserves increased steadily until 1960 (fig. 1.8), followed by steady decline since then. Discovery of the huge Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska in 1971 gave a short-lived boost to US reserves. With the exception of Prudhoe Bay, the US petroleum industry is not currently discovering or developing new deposits of oil, and there is no expectation of discovering new deposits of oil similar to Prudhoe Bay. Reserves and domestic production are both decreasing. US reserves in 2008 were 19.1 billion barrels. The United States consumes 7.1 billion barrels of crude each year, 2.6 billion barrels of which come from domestic production. Domestic reserves will last about seven years at the current rate of production. With increasing demand and decreasing domestic production, the United States will import increasing amounts of oil in coming years. We could stabilize imports by increasing production, but that would hasten the depletion of our reserves.

FIGURE 1.8 Proved US Oil Reserves by Year. Spurred by exploration and oil-field development, US proved reserves of oil grew steadily until the 1960s and then leveled off. The discovery of the huge Prudhoe Bay deposit in 1970 produced a large but temporary jump in reserves. Since then, domestic proved reserves have steadily declined. The latest data for 2008 show proved reserves at 19.1 billion barrels, enough for seven years at our current rates of consumption, imports, and domestic production.

Source: EIA, Petroleum Navigator, “Annual US Crude Oil Proved Reserves,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR01NUS_1&f=A.

There are several different types of reserves in the energy literature, such as “proved,” “measured,” “indicated,” “demonstrated,” and “prospective.” Each term means something different, and the numbers of barrels of oil in each type of reserve differ substantially. Making sense of the discussion of reserves is a challenge. The data I have presented reflect proved reserves, the most conservative estimate. The location, quantity, and grade of the energy source in these reserves are well established and uncontroversial. The EIA provides the following definition of proved reserves:

Proved reserves of crude oil . . . are the estimated quantities of all liquids defined as crude oil, which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. . . . Reservoirs are considered proved if economic producibility is supported by actual production or conclusive formation test (drill stem or wire line), or if economic producibility is supported by core analyses and/or electric or other log interpretations. The area of an oil reservoir considered proved includes: (1) that portion delineated by drilling and defined by gas—oil and/or gas—water contacts, if any; and (2) the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons is considered to be the lower proved limit of the reservoir. . . . Reserves of crude oil which can be produced economically through application of improved recovery techniques (such as fluid injection) are included in the “proved” classification when successful testing by a pilot project, or the operation of an installed program in the reservoir, provides support for the engineering analysis on which the project or program was based.¹¹

Succinctly, with regard to proved reserves, we know the crude oil is there, and we know how much is there because we have seen it and touched it and measured it. One can be confident of proved reserves.

There may be more oil if we consider undiscovered technically recoverable reserves (UTRR). The US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimate of UTRR on the outer continental shelf in 2006 was 85.9 billion barrels (mean value).¹² The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimate of onshore UTRR in 2007 was 42.1 billion barrels.¹³ Together these amount to 128 billion barrels of crude, six times the proved reserves. These estimates span a range of probable values. The numbers given here are mean values. That is, there is a 50% probability that we will actually find 128 billion barrels, but there is a 95% probability that we will find at least 100 billion barrels and a 5% probability of finding 170 billion barrels or more.

I am uneasy with the rosy UTRR estimates, and not just because the estimates are probabilistic and therefore uncertain. My uneasiness stems from the definition of UTRR. The MMS assessment report defines UTRR as “Oil and Gas that may be produced as a consequence of natural pressure, artificial lift, pressure maintenance, or other secondary recovery methods, but without any consideration of economic viability. They are primarily located outside of known fields.”¹⁴

The Bakken Formation exemplifies my concern with prospective reserves. The Bakken Formation is a 200,000-square-mile area extending across Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan containing large oil and gas reserves. Although there have been several published estimates of the volumes of oil and natural gas in the formation, there is no agreement on the actual volume of remaining resources. Estimates change from time to time as data, methodology, and assumptions change. The current USGS estimate is 3.65 billion barrels of oil in UTRR of the Bakken Formation.¹⁵ This is a twenty-five-fold increase over the previous estimate of 151 million barrels made in 1995. The magnitude of the change makes me suspicious of the estimation process.

We know that the United States has oil reserves totaling 19.1 billion barrels. We think there might be an additional 128 billion barrels, for a total of 149 billion barrels. In that case, our reserves would last fifty-seven years rather than seven at current rates of consumption, production, and importation. Regardless of which prediction turns out to be true, we are going to have severe problems with supply of oil within the lifetime of children being born now. Where the future of civilization as we know it is concerned, I would prefer to stick to proved reserves.

Proved oil reserves worldwide (1,332 billion barrels) and rate of consumption (31.2 billion barrels per year) are such that the world will not run out of oil for forty-three years if consumption remains at the current level. Oil reserves are concentrated in the Middle East and OPEC nations, as shown in figure 1.9. OPEC controls three-quarters of world oil reserves, and most of that is in the Middle East. The United States, and much of the world, will be dependent on OPEC for energy for years to come.

Bottom Line

The United States will run out of domestic proved oil reserves in about seven years if we continue the current rates of consumption, production, and importation. Unfortunately, demand is growing and production is decreasing. Imports will probably have to increase, but this is just what we want to avoid. We can stabilize imports and minimize foreign control by increasing production, which means developing new wells and tapping our reserves, but this will hasten depletion of our reserves. How long we can postpone depleting our reserves depends on how successful we are in developing undiscovered oil fields. Even rosy predictions indicate trouble within the lifetime of children being born today. We can also postpone it by reducing oil consumption. One way of reducing demand for oil is reducing demand for gasoline and diesel. I discuss alternative-vehicle technology in chapter 3.

Becoming independent of foreign oil is a tall order. Conventional wisdom is that by reducing gasoline consumption, we will reduce demand for foreign oil. I disagree. Even if we were to eliminate gasoline consumption, we would still need other petroleum products, such as fuel oils, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemical feedstock. Unless we find replacements for these or strongly reduce consumption, reducing gasoline consumption will have a marginal effect on demand for foreign crude. Second, because the percentages of various products from refining change with the mix of incoming crude, we need an active international trade in the various grades of crude in order to have efficient refining for as long as we need oil.

FIGURE 1.9 Proved World Oil Reserves. Proved world reserves of crude oil stand at 1,332 billion barrels, enough for about forty years at the current world consumption rate of 31.2 billion barrels per year. OPEC, with 73% of world reserves, and the Middle East, with 59% of reserves, dominate the world’s oil supply.

Source: Percentages calculated from data at EIA, “International Energy Statistics; Crude Oil Proved Reserves,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6.

Natural Gas

Natural gas is available domestically, it burns cleanly, and transporting it is easy. Moreover, it is a vehicle fuel (see chapter 3). Natural gas has a lot to offer.

Transportation and Storage

Transporting natural gas via pipeline under pressure is straightforward. Transportation domestically and between the United States and Mexico and Canada is by pressurized pipeline. There are over 210 pipeline systems in the United States, with over 305,000 miles of pipes and fourteen hundred compressor stations for maintaining pressure in the pipelines. There are also around four hundred underground storage fields. Common practice is to smooth demand on the pipeline network by storing natural gas during April through October and extracting it during the November to March heating season. Pipeline storage capacity is 1.6 to 3.6 Tcf, reasonably well matched to the annual home heating demand. Pipelines make a good transportation system. Gas flows readily, capacity is easily increased by raising the pressure in the pipeline (within reason of course), and the energy to pump and compress the natural gas in the pipeline comes from the gas itself. Operators siphon off about 8% of the gas flow to operate the pipeline, so there is a slight energy loss inherent in pipeline transportation.

Because of the low energy content of natural gas at atmospheric pressure (1,031 Btu per cubic foot), long-distance and transoceanic transport requires another approach. In terms of energy content, it would take over 900 gallons of natural gas at atmospheric pressure to provide the energy contained in a single gallon of gasoline. Natural gas at atmospheric pressure is an inefficient medium for storage and transportation because of the large volume of gas needed. There are two ways to address this problem. The first is to transport the resource in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is natural gas cooled to −260°F. Cooling the gas condenses it about 600:1 by volume and turns it into a liquid. LNG has slightly less energy per unit volume than gasoline, but it is an efficient form for storage. It is more efficient to transport natural gas as LNG in large, cooled tanks, which are essentially giant refrigerated thermos bottles. Transoceanic shipping and trucking to places not served by pipelines use LNG. LNG is warmed and converted back to gas at the destination. As in pipeline operations, common practice is to siphon off some of the gas as the source of energy for cooling the gas initially, keeping the tanks cold during transport, and warming the gas at the destination. About 15% of the gas is lost to cooling during a typical transoceanic voyage.

The other method relies on compressed natural gas (CNG). The gas is compressed to about 3,600 psi (pounds per square inch) at normal ambient temperature. The energy content per volume of CNG is only about a quarter of that of LNG, but insulated storage tanks and active cooling are not necessary. The more complicated to produce and expensive LNG is preferred for long-distance transportation because of the higher energy per volume, and CNG is preferred for short-distance transportation and long-term storage because active cooling is not required. Still, CNG requires strong, heavy tanks to contain gas at 3,600 psi. I return to this matter in chapter 3 in the discussion of natural gas vehicles.

Production, Consumption, and Imports

Figure 1.10 shows how we used natural gas in the United States in 2008. Most of the natural gas went to domestic use in heating, cooling, and cooking and to generating electricity. The “Plant & Pipeline” category in the figure includes gas consumed in plant and pipeline activities and a very small amount used for vehicle fuel.

US consumption and production of natural gas have been increasing slowly since the late 1940s (fig. 1.11), with consumption growing slightly faster than production. Consumption is currently 23.2 Tcf and domestic production a little under 20 Tcf. To offset the difference, the United States imports 3.98 Tcf annually, almost all of it from Canada, but some from Mexico, and some from outside North America, mainly from Trinidad (fig. 1.12). Despite claims of huge domestic supply, the United States imports 16% of its natural gas, far less than the 66% of our petroleum that we import, but still significant.

FIGURE 1.10 US Natural Gas Consumption by Sector, 2008. Most natural gas goes to heating. Powering and maintaining the pipeline network accounts for 8%. Almost none is used in transportation. About 29% is used to generate electricity, compared with 100% of uranium, 1% of oil, and 91% of coal.

Source: Percentages calculated from data at EIA, Natural Gas Navigator, “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm.

Reserves

Conventional wisdom is that we have plenty of natural gas. Is the conventional wisdom correct? How much natural gas do we have in the United States? Can we continue to be gas-independent of the rest of the world? Well, not entirely. Proved US reserves amount to 237.7 Tcf, which will last about twelve years at our current rate of production. The United States will have to increase imports if domestic production is not increased. Indeed, this is already happening, as evidenced by the number of new LNG terminals being planned or constructed. We will soon be in the same position of dependence on foreign sources of natural gas as we now are on foreign sources of petroleum. Of course, as exploration continues and prices of fuel rise, more natural gas will become economically available. On the other hand, extensive conversion from gasoline vehicles to natural gas vehicles will increase natural gas demand and severely exacerbate the supply situation.

FIGURE 1.11 US Natural Gas Production, Consumption, and Imports. Natural gas production and consumption grew steadily until about 1971, when the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil deposit boosted oil supply. Production and consumption decreased for over a decade and then resumed a steady increase about the time that oil imports started increasing after the temporary drop brought on by the oil embargo. Current consumption is 23 Tcf, of which 3.98 Tcf (16%) is imported, predominantly from Canada.

Sources: Consumption: EIA, Natural Gas Navigator, “Annual US Natural Gas Total Consumption,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2a.htm. Production: EIA, Natural Gas Navigator, “Annual US Natural Gas Marketed Production,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm. Imports: EIA, Natural Gas Navigator, “Annual US Natural Gas Imports,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2a.htm.

World consumption of natural gas is currently 105.5 Tcf annually. Comparing this consumption rate with proved world reserves of 6,254 Tcf indicates that the world will not run out of natural gas for fifty-nine years if consumption remains at the current level. Compared to world reserves of oil, natural gas reserves in the Middle East are smaller, and reserves in the Western Hemisphere and Russia are larger (fig. 1.13).

FIGURE 1.12 US Natural Gas Imports by Country, 2008. US imports of natural gas amount to 3.98 Tcf per year, 16% of consumption, almost all of it from Canada.

Source: Percentages calculated from data at EIA, Natural Gas Navigator, “US Natural Gas Imports by Country,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm.

FIGURE 1.13 Proved World Natural Gas Reserves, 2009. Total proved world natural gas reserves are 6,254 Tcf, enough for about forty years at current and projected rates of consumption. While the Middle East holds about 41% of the world reserves of natural gas (compared with almost 60% of the oil), it will still be a major player in energy as we depend more heavily on natural gas. The dominant suppliers will be in the Middle East and Russia.

Source: Percentages calculated from data at EIA, “International Natural Gas Reserves and Resources,” www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/naturalgasreserves.xls.

Bottom Line

Natural gas is a clean fuel used primarily for space heating and cooling, cooking, and generating electricity. US production and consumption are relatively constant, and US proved reserves should continue to be adequate for the next ten years with constant levels of consumption, production, and imports. Natural gas will last longer than oil at current rates of production and consumption, but the United States will have to increase imports relatively soon. Fortunately, world consumption and reserves are such that the worldwide supply is secure for a longer time, about sixty years. This situation could change drastically if demand for natural gas increases sharply as a result of widespread use of natural gas vehicles.

The United States currently imports 16% of its natural gas. Trends in production and consumption strongly indicate that we will have to import a larger percentage of our natural gas in the future despite the commonplace claims of “plentiful” domestic natural gas. The number of new LNG terminals in planning or under construction convincingly point to the likelihood of increased imports of natural gas. In addition to having to increase foreign imports of natural gas to satisfy domestic demand, a significant percentage of the gas will be lost because of the need to cool the gas during transportation and reheat it at its destination, effectively increasing consumption.

Coal

Coal is the most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel worldwide. Coal is primarily carbon with varying amounts of sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Coal is the primary source of electricity worldwide and is the primary source of CO₂ emissions and pollution worldwide. Mining coal is extremely damaging to the environment and to the health and safety of miners.

There are several types of coal with differing energy and carbon content: peat, lignite, subbituminous, bituminous, anthracite, and graphite.¹⁶ Peat and lignite are not major players. Graphite does not burn very well but makes great pencils and powdered lubricant. For our purposes, bituminous coal and anthracite are the most important. Anthracite is the hardest of the lot and has the most energy per pound and the least pollutants. It is the main coal used for residential and commercial space heating. Bituminous coal is used mainly for electric power generation and combined heat and power in industry and as a source of aromatic hydrocarbons for the chemical industry.

Production, Consumption, and Imports

US consumption of coal in 2007 was 1.1 billion short tons.¹⁷ About 93% is subbituminous or bituminous, and less than 1% is anthracite. Ninety-one percent goes to electric power utilities, but industrial production of electricity raises the percentage of coal that goes to generating electricity. Almost all coal, 91% of it in the United States, is used to generate electricity.

US production of coal in 2008 was 1.17 billion short tons, slightly greater than consumption (1.12 billion short tons). The US exports some coal and imports some. Net trade comes to 47.3 million short tons exported. This is a mere 4% of production. For all practical purposes, export and import rates may be ignored at the current time.

Reserves

Coal reserves present a situation vastly different from those of oil. US recoverable coal reserve is 271 billion short tons,¹⁸ enough for 226 years at the current rate of production. World reserves are 1,001 billion short tons, enough to last 143 years at current rates of consumption. The United States will still have coal after the rest of the world runs out. Indeed, 75% of the world’s coal is in the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and India (fig. 1.14). The Middle East is devoid of coal. If current rates of production and consumption are maintained, the United States will eventually be a supplier of coal to the rest of the world.

FIGURE 1.14 Proved World Coal Reserves, 2006. Total world reserves of coal amount to 1,001 billion short tons, of which 272 billion short tons are in the United States. Coal is the one fossil fuel the United States has in abundance. Should the world shift from oil to coal, dominance would shift away from OPEC and the Middle East toward the United States, Russia, China, India, and Australia, which together hold three-quarters of the world’s coal.

Source: Data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2007. The data are also found in readable format at Wikipedia, “Coal,” table “Proved Recoverable Coal Reserves, at End-2006,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal. Note that the data have been converted from metric ton to short tons.

Bottom Line

Domestic coal reserves will last a couple of hundred years at current rates of production and consumption. Worldwide reserves will last a shorter time. That is the good news. The bad news is that almost all coal consumed in the United States goes to generating electricity, with the result that coal is responsible for huge amounts of pollution and greenhouse gases.

The role coal plays in the national energy strategy in coming decades depends on several conflicting factors. First, coal is a hydrocarbon fossil fuel that, in contrast to oil and natural gas, is abundant in the United States. However, coal is not a vehicle fuel, so it cannot directly replace oil or natural gas. As discussed in chapter 4, there is ongoing research into converting coal into liquid vehicle fuel. If these efforts are successful and we can get gasoline from coal without increasing pollution and environmental damage, then we are in a very good position. Demand for foreign oil would then decrease. Demand for foreign oil would also decrease if there were a paradigm shift away from internal combustion engines to electric cars. Coal then becomes the primary source of vehicle fuel because of its preeminent role in generating electricity. However, the inherent dirtiness of coal is a significant impediment. As discussed in chapter 4, there is ongoing research into making coal “clean.” If this is successful, it will significantly improve our energy situation.

Uranium

Like coal, uranium is not an automotive fuel, but it is a source of electricity, so it belongs in any discussion of driving green. As a means of generating electricity, uranium (which fuels nuclear power), is unique among the energy sources we have been discussing in that it is not a fossil fuel and produces no conventional pollution or greenhouse gases. On the down side, there is strong opposition to nuclear power in the United States because of safety and security concerns.

Simply stated, a nuclear reactor brings about fission of uranium atoms to heat water that drives a turbine to generate electricity. The reactor contains uranium fuel rods, which last three to five years, after which time they become “spent” and are replaced. The reactor generates heat in a controlled chain reaction. Water, or some other coolant, circulates through the reactor and transfers heat from the reactor to a boiler. The hot water or steam from the boiler then drives a turbine, which generates electricity.

Electricity Production

There are 65 nuclear power plants in the United States with 104 individual reactors (fig. 1.15). The first full-power operating license was granted in 1957. The last construction permit was issued in 1979, and no new reactor has started operations since 1997. These plants provide 100,000 megawatts (MW) total capacity, and they generated 806 billion kWh of electrical energy in 2008.¹⁹ This was 20% of US consumption (coal, natural gas, and oil provide the rest).

Worldwide, there are 436 nuclear power reactors including the 104 in the United States. There are operating reactors in 31 countries, with plans or proposals for reactors in 15 more. Nuclear power provides 2% of the world’s energy needs and 15% of the world’s electricity. While the United States uses more uranium and produces more electricity from nuclear power than any other country (fig. 1.16), other countries are more dependent on nuclear power. The United States generates 21% of its electricity using nuclear power, the European Union 30%, and France 80%. Opposition to nuclear power notwithstanding, nuclear power for civilian electricity is commonplace.

FIGURE 1.15 US Nuclear Power Reactors. There are 65 nuclear power plants in the United States with 104 individual reactors. The last construction permit was issued in 1979, and no new reactor has started operations since 1997. Several reactors have been deactivated since 1990, when the number of active reactors peaked at 112.

Source: EIA, “Annual Energy Review, 2009,” table 9.1, “Nuclear Generating Units, 1955–2009,” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf.

Production, Consumption, and Imports

Uranium ore contains several different oxides of uranium, and different ores from different locations contain different oxides and in varying concentrations. That is, there is wide variation in uranium ores. Fundamental processing consists of grinding, milling, and chemical extraction of the uranium oxides, resulting in “yellowcake.” Modern yellowcake is typically 70% to 90% triuranium octaoxide (U₃O₈) by weight, the remainder being made up of other oxides, such as uranium dioxide (UO₂) and uranium trioxide (UO₃). Discussions of uranium consumption actually refer to consumption of U₃O₈ or its equivalent.

FIGURE 1.16 Nuclear Power Production of Electricity by Country, 2007. Worldwide, thirty-one countries generate at least some of their electricity from nuclear power. Total generation of nuclear power electricity was 2,595 billion kWh in 2007. The twelve largest producers, shown here, generate 89% of the world’s nuclear power electricity. The United States produces 31%. The United States has more reactors than any other country and produces more electricity by nuclear power than any other country.

Source: Data from EIA, “Table 2.7 World Net Nuclear Electric Power Generation, 1980–2007,” www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls.

World consumption of uranium is 150 million pounds a year.²⁰ World production of uranium in 2008 was 96.7 million pounds.²¹ This means that the world’s production from uranium mines covers less than three-quarters of world demand. This situation is not as dire as it might sound at first. The deficit is made up by withdrawing material from uranium stockpiles, converting weapon materials to commercial use, reprocessing spent reactor fuel rods, and re-enriching tailings left over from the initial enrichment processing. While some of these measures, such as withdrawing from stockpiles and converting nuclear weapons, will soon end, others will continue. As prices increase and techniques improve, reprocessing tailings will become more productive. Reprocessing spent fuel rods also expands the supply of uranium. Together, reenriching tailings and reprocessing fuel rods adds 12% to 20% to the uranium supply. Moreover, mines traditionally have been operating at three-fourths capacity, so productivity could be increased.

The picture becomes very interesting when we look at indigenous supplies of uranium. Indeed, 60% of production comes from three countries: Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan. This means that a very large number of countries depend on a few suppliers.

US consumption is 51.3 million pounds per year (uranium loaded into reactors). Domestic production provides 4 million pounds, and net imports provide 39.9 million pounds. As in the world at large, the deficit is made up with material from stockpiles and converting weapons. The United States does not reprocess reactor fuel rods, so that source is not available. Overall, the United States imports about 80% of its uranium.

Reserves

World reserves are estimated to be 12 billion pounds.²² With world consumption running at 150 million pounds per year, reserves should last eighty years. However, this estimate does not consider the techniques currently used to make up the deficit between production and consumption. Withdrawals from stockpiles, converting nuclear weapons to civilian power needs, reprocessing tailings, and reprocessing spent reactor fuel rods will stretch reserves between 12% and 20%. That is, world reserves should last almost a hundred years with no growth in demand.

Correspondingly, US reserves of uranium are 890 million pounds, which will support the current production rate for over two hundred years as long as the high rate of imports is maintained. US reserves would support current consumption for about seventeen years if foreign imports were curtailed.

The last thing to look at is where the reserves are located (fig. 1.17). Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, South Africa, Canada, and the US hold 75% of world uranium reserves; the United States has slightly less than 5%.

Potential

Nuclear power has the potential for being a limitless source of energy. Fast breeder reactor technology extends the promise of producing almost as much nuclear fuel as it consumes, thereby extending reserves hundreds or thousands of years. Feasibility demonstrations of extracting uranium from seawater, an almost limitless reserve, also show promise. There are concerns with both of these possibilities, but if they pan out, the world supply of electricity will be secure for a long time.

FIGURE 1.17 Proved World Uranium Reserves, 2007. Total proved world reserves of uranium were estimated to be 12,000 million pounds (5.5 MMt) in 2007. This will last eighty years at current rates of consumption. There is almost no uranium in the Middle East.

Sources: World Nuclear Association, “World Uranium Mining,” table “Known Recoverable Resources of Uranium 2007,” www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html.

Dangers

The first thing most people think of with regard to the dangers of nuclear power is the possibility of a rogue state or terrorist organization obtaining a functional nuclear bomb from a military stockpile. This is definitely a possibility, and a lot of effort is being devoted to ensuring that it does not happen. However, it has little bearing on commercial civilian nuclear power plants.

Still, there are several significant dangers associated with nuclear power. Radiation from spent fuel rods and waste material is a health hazard. Fuel rods and waste materials contain plutonium, which rogue states or terrorists might be able to use to make nuclear bombs if they got hold of it. Damage to nuclear reactors, which might be caused either by natural events such as earthquakes or by terrorist activity, is a concern because of the potential for releasing radioactive contaminants. Finally, damage to long-term storage facilities for radioactive waste material could cause severe health and environmental problems.

Nuclear power is widespread throughout the world in civilian power plants and moderately common on naval warships and on some civilian icebreakers. The nuclear industry has an enviable safety record. Except for the accident at Chernobyl, which I discuss shortly, no workers or member of the public have ever died from radiation from a commercial power plant accident.²³ When we look at industrial accidents from 1970 to 1992 in the United States and the United Kingdom and calculate the number of deaths per quantity of electricity produced, the number of deaths is small. For every death in nuclear power plants, there were 10 in natural gas plants, 43 in coal plants, and 110 in hydroelectric plants.

There have been only two serious nuclear power plant accidents worldwide: at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. In the Three Mile Island incident, a cooling malfunction led to a partial core meltdown. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa., on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.”²⁴ There was a partial meltdown of the core and release of radiation. However, the core would have remained intact if not for operator error, and the radiation was contained by the reactor containment vessel. That is, even with the much-feared core meltdown, which was only partial in this case, the safety systems worked and prevented a serious situation.

The April 1986 accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, was the worst nuclear accident anywhere. The explosion and resulting fire, products of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators, destroyed the reactor. The major flaw was that there was no containment vessel surrounding the reactor, as has always been standard in US power plants and is now standard worldwide. According to the World Nuclear Association,

The accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosis. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident. Nineteen more subsequently died between 1987 and 2004 but their deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure. Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects although a large proportion of childhood thyroid cancers diagnosed since the accident is likely to be due to intake of radioactive iodine fallout.²⁵

The death toll eventually rose to fifty-six, about half of the deaths occurring in the one or two days immediately after the accident. The health effect on the children is unfortunate. Radioactive iodine-131, one of the by-products of a nuclear reactor, is not especially dangerous unless ingested, in which case it accumulates in the thyroid and can lead to thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is easily treated if detected early and seldom leads to death. At Chernobyl, there were nine deaths from four thousand cases of thyroid cancer, a survival rate well above 99%. And since the half-life is of iodine-131 is only eight days, if consumption of milk from the affected area had been prevented for a month or so, the number of thyroid cancers resulting from the accident would have been greatly diminished.

The common concern that terrorists might attack a nuclear power plant is overstated. In the first place, nuclear power plants cannot explode like bombs. The physics simply does not allow that to happen. (This is not true of some advanced reactor design concepts on the drawing board, but it is definitely true of existing designs.) The main concern about terrorists attacking a nuclear power is that radiation could be released. However, power plant containment vessels are quite robust, and analyses show that they can withstand direct impact from a fully fueled 767 jet aircraft. Indeed, nothing short of repeated artillery assault or detonation of a bunker-busting bomb would cause release of any radiation. Overall, the release of significant amounts of radiation is extremely unlikely. Terrorists with a weapon that could breach a reactor containment vessel would be able to cause much more damage and loss of life using the weapon elsewhere.

Our experience with nuclear power since the dawn of the nuclear age and the lessons of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl show that, with appropriate attention to design, training, and operation, nuclear power plants are as safe as, or safer than, any other type of power plant.

Bottom Line

Nuclear power is a pollution-free source of electricity. Reserves should satisfy world demand for uranium for one hundred years. Beyond that, potential developments hold the promise for a virtually limitless supply of energy. Skyrocketing uranium prices in the past few years are reason for concern. However, the current price situation seems related to the cost of increasing production rather than to inadequate reserves. Increases in price should shortly stimulate increased production, which will eventually bring prices down.

US reserves of uranium are modest, and the United States has to import almost all of the uranium it consumes. Fortunately, the major sources are good friends. However, this might change in the future, and the small amount of domestic uranium will be a continuing concern. Developing other sources of uranium, such as fast breeder reactors and seawater, will alleviate the concern.

On the negative side, there is justifiable concern about safety of operation and safety of radioactive waste storage. However, the dangers are manageable. As real as they are, nuclear power health and safety hazards are generally overstated. Nonetheless, any effort to expand nuclear power must address the public’s safety concerns.

Summary

The US energy situation is troubling, both from the point of view of domestic reserves and dependence on foreign sources. At the current rates of domestic production and consumption, US proved reserves of petroleum will last 7 years, of natural gas will last 12 years, and of coal and uranium will last roughly 225 years. Coal will last so long because the United States has huge reserves. Uranium will last so long because we import 80% of our consumption. Can we stop importing foreign oil, natural gas, and uranium? That is, can domestic reserves support current consumption for a reasonable time? At the present, the United States imports 66% of its oil, 16% of its natural gas, and 80% of its uranium. For domestic oil reserves to support consumption, domestic production would have to triple. If this were even possible, reserves would then last only three years. Production of natural gas would have to be increased 20%, which is reasonable, but domestic reserves would then last only ten years. Uranium production would have to be increased a staggering thirteenfold, resulting in a mere seventeen-year reserve. The reserves will almost definitely last longer with the development of UTRR, but such development may take decades. Increasing oil and uranium production as much as suggested would be difficult. It seems unreasonable to expect that the United States will be able to stop importing energy as long as we continue to consume energy at current rates. Fortunately, world reserves of oil, natural gas, and uranium are larger than domestic reserves. The world will be able to draw on proved reserves of oil and natural gas for about 50 years, uranium for about 80, and coal for over 140 years at current rates of consumption. One should expect that with increasing population and increasing industrialization of the third world, demand for energy resources will grow apace. If consumption increases 3% annually, as did US consumption of oil over the past hundred years, the lifetime of these reserves decreases to a few decades.

Oil is unique in that it is the exclusive current source of vehicle fuel. At the same time, oil provides many products such as lubricating oils, fuel oils, and petrochemical industry feedstocks that we depend on. Conserving gasoline and diesel fuel will ease demand for oil somewhat, but we will still need oil as long as we have no alternative source for the other petroleum products.

Natural gas is almost as good a fuel as oil. Natural gas supplies heating, it is a potential vehicle fuel, and it is cleaner than oil. However, natural gas is also running out, and we will soon be in a situation similar to that in which we are with respect to oil now, so natural gas is not the final solution, just a resource that prolongs availability of petroleum.

Coal is a different story. US coal reserves will last 225 years at current rates of production and consumption, much longer than the 164 years other world coal reserves will last. Indeed, the US does not import any coal and holds a quarter of the world’s reserves. When it comes to coal supplies, the United States is in a strong position. Unfortunately, coal power is polluting, and unless we learn how to clean up its production, depending on coal could be a health and environmental disaster. Moreover, coal is not a vehicle fuel, and unless we learn how to extract gasoline and diesel from coal, it will not help us with dwindling supplies of oil and natural gas. Alternatively, the United States could shift from an oil economy to an electricity economy, drawing on coal as a primary resource. The inherent inefficiency of power station turbines makes coal power’s high pollution levels even more of a problem for electricity. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and reduce damage to the environment. Otherwise, a major increase in coal consumption would not be acceptable.

Nuclear power promises a clean, virtually inexhaustible source of electricity. Uranium is abundant, and nuclear power would meet our growing demand for electricity as long as we manage the health and safety issues satisfactorily. As with coal, a shift from oil- to electric-powered vehicles could greatly increase demand for nuclear power. If we overcome safety concerns, nuclear power may be a virtually inexhaustible pollution-free source of electricity.

Much of the rest of this book deals with stretching oil reserves by making gasoline vehicles more efficient and replacing gasoline with some nonpetroleum fuel. But even if we learn to live without gasoline, we will not survive in a post-petroleum world unless we find other sources or replacements for other petrochemical products.