Image: Courtesy of barackobamadotcom on Flickr
Energy security is the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity of our time. But lack of action has put the U.S. at risk. America needs a bold plan that ignites our collective imagination, sparks innovation, and creates economic and national security. The starting point? A call to action from our new president in the first 100 days of his administration.
The president, Congress and industry must proceed with haste because a seismic restructuring of the global energy system is under way. Oil and natural gas consumption is rising at an unsustainable rate. Western companies that have controlled Middle Eastern oil since World War II are losing prominence. New powerhouses, notably Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom, China’s CNPC, Iran’s NIOC, Venezuela’s PDVSA, Brazil’s Petrobras, and Malaysia’s Petronas, control more than one third of the world’s oil and gas reserves. The International Energy Agency estimates that 90 percent of new production over the next 40 years will come from developing countries.
Flush with resources—and influence—these supply countries and their nationalized companies are amassing assets and market shares, while building their own integrated supply chains. Russia is using its oil and gas abundance to lock up deals with European countries, even as they fret about how their huge neighbor will use its dominant energy position as a geopolitical tool. Many speculate that Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia was spurred, in part, by that position. And China is on a worldwide march to secure energy supplies and minerals.
The global shift in supply chains and the effects of natural disasters, terrorism and war dispel the notion of “energy independence.” The U.S. must focus on “energy security” instead, which should include as much self-sufficiency as we can muster.
Since 1973 the U.S. has gone from importing a third of its oil to nearly two thirds. New energy policies have arisen after events such as oil embargoes or price hikes, only to fade away. Today the forces working against the U.S. are staggering. So is the opportunity to benefit economically; the global private sector is investing heavily in renewable technologies, yet the U.S. has barely taken part. This time we must get our energy policy right—and soon. We urgently need decisive leadership.
The Action Plan
The U.S. can no longer afford merely to tinker with alternative energy or to focus on a single energy source. We certainly cannot drill our way out of this problem. A comprehensive energy plan would adhere to six principles: ensure redundancy of supply and diversity of source; support well-functioning energy markets; invest in sound infrastructure for energy generation, transmission and distribution; provide for environmental sustainability and energy conservation based on full life-cycle costs; offer consistent regulation and transparent price signals; and link each energy source to its optimal sector of use.
Working through the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, leaders from industry, labor, academia and government are formulating such a comprehensive energy security road map, with a particular eye to enhancing economic competitiveness while limiting environmental damage. A cornerstone of the plan is an action agenda that the new president and Congress should implement in the administration’s first 100 days:
- Issue an executive order mandating that the federal government purchase products and services that meet the highest energy-efficiency standards. Such leadership and market pull will encourage the private sector.
- Establish a $200-billion “clean energy” bank, modeled on the U.S. Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It will provide long-term financing for commercial investment in sustainable energy solutions that reduce, avoid or sequester carbon.
- Triple the currently paltry federal investment in basic and applied energy research and development. Create public-private partnerships—with federal baseline funding matched by state and private investments—to foster regional test beds and large-scale pilot plants for new energy technologies. Also, finance start-up companies and support existing small and medium-size clean energy businesses.
- End inequitable subsidies to select energy sources, equalizing competition. Direct the Office of Management and Budget to create a cross-governmental group that identifies barriers to various energy sources. Issue a presidential executive order, or propose legislation, to establish a consistent federal investment framework for all energy options—one that requires a full life-cycle analysis, including consideration of environmental impacts, legal liabilities, tax incentives, and distortion from trade subsidies and tariffs.
- Hasten the creation of a National Electrical Transmission Superhighway, which would enable significant expansion of alternative energy supplies. The president should convene governors and regulators to plan how to replace the current patchwork of transmission regulations within and between states with a single set of interoperability standards for a truly nationwide, intelligent, self-healing power grid. Also, spur creation of consortia that can model the technical characteristics of that smart grid.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentTo help implement this electricity based energy policy (whether generated by wind, solar, tidal, etc), the generated electricity could be used to electrolyze water into hydrogen gas. Unused gas mains that are in existence all over the country could be used to distribute hydrogen to local power generation stations, where hydrogen fuel cells would convert it back to electricity to feed the local grid system. This could save time and money helping realize the new energy system years sooner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe enormous influence of the Energy Lobby must be confronted. Although the energy companies are massive, by and large they are Privatizing Profits and Commonizing Costs, and using their profits to ensure the cycle continues. As I understand it, there are countless good ideas - sustainable - that could be used for the benefit of everyone but their major problem is that they are not developed yet and hold no influence NOW. Although possible and with effort probable, these new energy sources do not have the revenues that Big Oil has to lobby the government (to not sign the Kyoto Protocol etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoliticians stand to make no money by representing the environment. A tree is not going to give anyone envelopes stuffed with greenbacks. Concurrently, it is more profitable for energy companies to invest in advertising to promote themselves as being green. My friend who worked for an energy company in Toronto said that the massive wind turbine on the waterfront was actually powered like a giant fan to create the public impression that the company was diversifying. The manufactured debate about global warming ("our product is doubt") is seldom viewed from the position of interest. On one side, billions of dollars and established infrastructure. On the other, self-righteous "liberal" scientists and their intellectual pride with relatively no money. If you gambled, which side would you handicap with bias?
GM's EV1 was halted years ago because it wouldn't be profitable (see "Who Killed the Electric Car" in Wikipedia). Oil wouldn't like it - no lines at the pumps - nor would the car service industries - no more oil changes. There is no incentive for Big Oil to develop sustainable energy technologies if they cannot offer additional sustainable income to the company that develops them. Why on earth would investors want to switch from a high-return energy commodity such as petroleum to a low-return energy-producing commodity such as solar-cells? Only developing companies stand to profit in the short term.
The technologies are scientific but the change will come from politics and economic realities. An ideal situation would be for many developing technologies to compete in the free market with government incentives while oil is increasingly taxed as a disincentive. Rightfully so, Big Oil will lobby any changes of this sort, so the public needs to be educated on the costs and benefits of changing to renewable and secure energy resources as well being able to cut through propaganda on an issue that has a diversity of interests.
The change needs to happen on the individual level. People will sell what people will buy. If we're not buying into alternative energy, less people will sell it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing that really needs to be changed is our terrible building codes. These ancient codes do nothing but encourage people to build inefficient houses. Buildings currently consume well over a third of the nations energy. Most of it is completely wasted because of stupid building practices. By imposing more stringent building codes, requiring higher efficiency and lower energy needs, we can cut quite a bit of our energy consumption.
Also, the electric cars being developed now are ridiculous. They're either large electric golf carts that can't go very far, or they are high powered sports vehicles that also cannot go very far. With our current technology we could easily make a car that cost less than $10,000, would travel more than 400 miles on a full charge, could charge to 90% in four hours via plug or 8 via solar cells on the roof. If it isn't stuffed full of useless bits, bobs and gadgets and instead built for economy, it could be marketed to the middle and lower class who will buy them up like crazy.
Also, if the government implemented an increasing carbon tax and used it to offer rebates to those who use alternative energy we could force oil, gas and coal to be phased out while encouraging people to develop and use alternative energy. A 5% tax that increases by 5% every year would have the price of a barrel of oil double in 20 years. The tax would be collected based on the amount of carbon in the product and rebates would be offered to those who capture and store the carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere based on the amount of carbon captured. Additionally, since the poor will feel the carbon tax the most while the wealthy will pay the most into it, it could be used to give substantial tax rebates to help offset the impact on the poor.
The technology isn't experimental or unproven. It has been proven and used successfully for quite some time. Not many are using it, however, simply due to lack of education. This stuff isn't more expensive, or difficult to use. It's just that big oil is paying us to stay stupid.
I'm listing below a few 'elements' extracted from Ms Jackson's article (I should include - but have not done so, on account of space limitations in the SciAm response system- elements from the responses to it + enough elements from the Obama+Biden Plan).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is to find out just how we may accomplish all of these things on the ground (in the context of the hundreds or even thousands of such things to do and get done in 'The Obama-Biden Plan' for the next presidential team. For instance: how to resolve the conflicts that will undoubtedly arise between people sponsoring different 'elements' of the plan: given the fact that resources are limited, priorities will no doubt have to be set between elements. Then how to choose between elements, given that each element may have a powerful 'sponsor' interested it in, so to say...
Here is a brief listing of the 'elements' I've extracted:
1. USA - To create a bold plan that ignires the nation's collective imagination; sparks true innovation at every level
2. To ensure that the plan creates economic security for the US
3. To ensure that the plan creates national security for the US against threats to its well-being
4. Obama: within first 100 days, to call on US citizens for support to a consensus plan of action
5. President, Congress and industry to work on moving the plan with all possible haste to take into plan's ambit the seismic restructuring of the global energy systems now under way
6. US: to focus on energy security, ensuring as much 'energy independence' as possible
7. To become ready to make hard choices, difficult decisions
8. US: To creat a comprehensive energy security road map
9. (Etc, etc)...
All of the above 'elements' are evidently useful in the light of US goals and objectibve - and many of them may also doubtless necessary; some of them will even be found to be essential.
The renowned systems scientist, John N. Warfield has created a powerful portfolio of tools that enable us to model such 'elements within complex systems' to show how they may contribute to (or hinder or prevent) each other. I'd suggest that such an exercise is essential in order to create an effective action plan taking into its ambit all critical issues of the US reality.
Information about Warfield's seminal contributions to systems science are available at http://www.jnwarfield.com. Information about some significant further developments from Warfield's work available from the undersigned at gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com.
1
My earlier post leaves one doubt unclarified: How is it possible to discover how those hundreds and thousands of elements in the system are related to eadch other? The answer lies in the nature of the relationship "contributes to": this is a transitive relationship. That is,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif 'A' --> 'B'
and if 'B' --> 'C'
Then 'A' MUST --> 'C'
where 'A', 'B', and 'C' represent those elements such as were listed in the earlier post and "-->" represents the transitive relationship under consideration. This p[roperly renders it possible to construct even very large models quite speedily and efficiently. We thereby get graphical representations of how complex systems are built up of such elements. We already know, from what is called 'Project Planning tools' how graphical PERT and Gantt Charts can be developed showing the precedences of large numbers of events in a 'time-dependent system'. It turns out that the transitive relationships of "contribution" (and other such system relationships) make it possible to enable clarity of communication and understanding of complex abstract systems of all kinds.
-- GSC
Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson speaks on actions to help us out of the energy crisis that will require enormous amounts of energy professionals. The recent trends of downsizing and even removing energy curricula on campuses (including her own) across the nation is sending signals that academia is not on board with the requirements to face the energy crisis. The training and educating of the innovators and professionals that Dr. Jackson implies will be needed for the implementation of her action plan are going to come from where? I can attest to the destruction of what was once an exceptional and nationally recognized electric power engineering program. This is occuring on the campus that Dr. Jackson is in charge of. I had seen this need for these professionals when I had decided to return to school to obtain my power engineering degree. This just adds another problem that needs to be adressed in the energy crisis afflicting our country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--RPI Electric Power Engineering Student
EPOW should be commended for his remarks on the inappropriateness at this period of our developing energy crisis of recent trends of downsizing and removing energy curricula at major schools. That provides at least two important elements to the list I had started up in an earlier message. Apart from that, EPOW has brought to light a further important concern (Element No. 11 in the listing below):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this9. To ensure that energy curricula are NOT downsized or removed from the teaching programs at schools of technology in the US.
10. To ensure that energy studies are given due importance in technology and other curicula in US schools, colleges and institutions of higher study.
11. To develop those who will teach and train the needed innovators and professionals for the coming era of energy crisis
12. Etc, etc, etc.
As stated earlier, there are likely to be hundreds of relevant 'elements'. John N. Warfield's seminal contributions to systems science make it possible for us to understand how these 'elements in the system' interact with each other (specifically in terms of "contributions" or the opposite). When we adequately understand those interactions, we are well on the way to understanding the system - and to designing/improving that system.
--- GSC
I love reading articles that go to press two weeks too late. Oil demand is dropping like a stone which is why oil prices are in free-fall, making it even more hilarious to read, once again, the tired old canard that we are running out of oil and natural gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on, guys. The routine gets old after 25 years.
Being old enough to remember gas lines in the 70's and not one but two oil embargoes, and over the years hearing that we need to do something about our energy useage I can say with absolute certainty that little or nothing will be done. Speaches will be made programs will be started but but in 4 years President Obama will be vilified and his programs eventually dismantled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Carter had a plan to significantly reduce our use of imported oil.
Many of the things like energy conservation (like the CAFE standards ) and alternative sources of energy ( solar energies where given a big boost ) where developed with inincentives of the government under his administration. The Regan administration did everything it could to dismantle those incentives and here we are nearly 30 years latter and things are worse. The Big three auto makers decided that a SUV was not a car but a truck and therefore exempt from the CAFE standard. They didn't try to make the SUV more efficient they didn't try to make the standard car more effient and by ignoring the wishes of many consumers the Japanese auto makers gained the lions share of the market. There is so much waste in the auto that shade tree mechanics with little more than aerodynamics improvements have increased thier fuel ecomomy by up to or over 50%. Home owners added insulation and otherimprovements because the builders would not , out of fear that people wouldn't pay extra for those things (Back when a 2000 square foot house in California might sell for about $100,000 or less)
Short term profits ,often very short term as in the 3 months of a quarter, have taken priority over any long term well being. Most people only live in thier house 7 years and then expect to sell it at a huge profit while adding little or nothing to the value and with the benifit of living in it for that time. It seems to me that Greed is at the root of our problems, It is not the only issue but it is so intrenched in the human spirit that I see no hope. And I am guilty and I am guilty and I am guilty but you are too. As I point one finger at you I point three at me.
It's too bad Ms. Jackson sees fit to use the tools of statism to get her way to promote a Mussolini-type energy policy that is full of expensive proposals (and funding for her institute) with little return. The propaganda of universities that the world is running of out energy and we need alternatives is absurd. Oil is now cheaper today than it was in years because the government destroyed the economy. Happy now? Oil was at $140 because the government wouldn't let people drill. Happy then? Just get the criminal state out of our lives and we will have plenty of real energy, not superstitious crank alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou don't happen to be a 'superstitious crank alternative' tomtomtomtom - do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this