Perhaps the biggest issue that President-elect Obama will face in his tenure as President is the issue of the future of energy.  Many problems have begun to arise with our current system of energy, primarily:

• Unfriendly energy suppliers – many are concerned that our own money may end up going to fund terrorist operations that act out against American and American interests throughout the world.
• Some scientists believe Earth’s stores of fossil fuels are beginning to become depleted.
• While I’m not sold on the idea yet, many people believe that carbon emissions are not only contributing to global warming but are its direct cause.

While it has become obvious to nearly all that we will have to make changes the ways in which we power our country, many people disagree on the appropriate path to follow.  Some argue that we should rely exclusively on passive and renewable sources of energy like solar or wind based power while others argue that it would be far more effective to fall back on to tested and readily available sources of energy, namely nuclear power.  Others yet advocate for the holding off of switching the power sources in the hope that promising research and theories will flourish into actionable solutions to our energy crisis.

But the only way that we can effectively transition our sources of power is to utilize all the different types of energy that are available to us.  Our leaders need to be able to understand and take advantage of market forces to create the energy change, but they also need to recognize that the dire need to transition and have to be willing to use governmental power to help aid the process along.

While I am by no means an expert on energy, I would argue that I have at least the similar level of understanding of the issue that most of our elected officials that will be in charge of the process have.  Here is my plan:

The Next Five Years (Cost-saving, intelligent conservation)

New systems don’t implement themselves overnight so it is very unlikely that any source of alternative energy will emerge in the next five years.  Therefore, the best way to proceed for both the government and the energy advocate is to encourage conservation.

Many people might cringe when they think of conservation because they think it means that they will have alter their lifestyles, but the kind of conservation that should be advocated is the intelligent kind.  Americans cannot and will not change their lifestyles, but most do not have too much of a problem changing a light-bulb.  Replacing incandescent bulbs with compact-florescent bulbs saves time (CF bulbs do not need to be changed as often), energy (the CF equivalent of a 60 Watt incandescent bulb uses about 15 Watts) and money (because CF bulbs use less energy and does not need to be changed as often).  Plus if you think that Global Warming is caused by human activity, then you’ll be happy to learn that compact-florescent bulbs emit less CO2.

Other changes may require minor changes in lifestyle, but at least in my opinion they are worth the money they save.  For instance, turning off electric devices (including lights) that aren’t in use or carpooling when possible.

And while most people are not thinking about purchasing a new vehicle during this time of economic uncertainty, when it is time for a new vehicle, people would do themselves a favor if they purchased a smaller, more fuel efficient car.  Most people with big trucks and SUVs don’t even use them to their full extent and thus they become a waste of money as well as a waste of gas.  If you can afford the upfront cost, I would recommend going for the hybrid cars.

The Next Ten Years (Implementing pre-existing technology)

While many technological advances will be made in the next ten years, for the most part it is unlikely that they will be actionable, meaning that the best thing that can be done is to build and refortify our system with the less effective, already invented technology.

Hydropower, although already used extensively, should be further implemented wherever possible.  New nuclear power plants should also be used, both to replace aging plants and to provide alternative and additional energy.
Other renewables such as wind and solar should be utilized.  I don’t know what ten years will do to the expense of these technologies, but if they are not economically feasible a decade from now, the government should issue tax credits to stimulate their usage.

If wind and solar power are going to be used as part of a large generation and distribution system, experts say upgrades will need to be made to our power grid so that power can be transmitted over a much wider area.
By this time the government should have taken steps, if necessary, to ensure that high fuel efficiency cars and hybrids dominate the market.  One would hope however that the change would be entirely powered by the free market and the government would not need to step in.  Electric “town” cars should also begin to become feasible for above average, but not exceedingly rich, markets.

Finally, over the next decade, the government should begin to revitalize public transportation as we know it.  It should be possible for people to quickly travel between regional large cities by train.  Major changes need to be made to the ways that existing train systems (Amtrack) operate to make them quicker and more punctual.  It should also be mandatory that every city over a certain population invests in some sort of a train/subway based public transit system.

The Distant Future – Twenty+ years (Discoverying and Implementing New Technologies)

Most people would like to see the results of the promise of new technology, like hydrogen based cars, today, but it can take a long time to work ideas into something tangible and real.  Of course progress has already been made in areas like hydrogen or methane energy generation but major problems still face these technologies.  They just aren’t realistic in the present, but they could be in the future.  Therefore, we should never give up our research on this issue.

A Final Word

I have no doubt that innovative American spirit that has given the world all the comforts of modern life will be able to find new energy solutions to power the next century and beyond.  While many have doubts about whether this generation will be able to maintain and improve the American lifestyle, I believe that it could not be more clear that our country and our world stands on the brink of a new golden age.

Scientists, politicians, even common people think of solutions to the growing energy crisis that we have everyday here in America. I actually wonder why: the answer is so simple that it almost makes me laugh:

Conservation, Nuclear Power, and Increased Renewable Energy Use.

• Conservation – It seems harder than it actually is. Turn off lights and appliances when you leave the room. DON’T warm up your car for 10 minutes before you leave for work/school. Turn off A/C during the summer when it is not super hot out (below 80 or so). Turn the heat down in your house during the winter and use a propane fireplace (or wood fireplace) to heat instead.

It may not seem like such a big deal to do the things above, and it mean even seem like doing such little things won’t help the overall problem. However, if everyone in American did the above things when possible – then it would be a lot less of an emergency to find alternate fuel sources. It would also cost a lot less to use energy (supply/demand)

• Nuclear Power – We can all agree that Nuclear Power isn’t exactly the cleanest solution to our problems… after all we are wanting a clean source of energy to power ourselves in the future. However, Nuclear Energy isn’t as ‘dirty’ as people imagine. All the bi-products are formed into glass tubes and buried under Government owned law in Nevada (and other places). Nuclear waste should be the least of our worries when dealing with Nuclear Power.

Nuclear Power plants are also extremely safe. One might worry of a nuclear breakdown – however since incidents at the Three-Mile Island plant and Chernobyl, Nuclear Power Plant protocol has become much stricter. Of course security is always going to be a consideration, a Nuclear Power Plant might become a significant target for terrorists, however if security is high at these reactors, it shouldn’t be a problem.

It should be noted that no new Nuclear Plants have been constructed since 1979 (in America) and all [functional] reactors can still be used. However in China and other developing countries, Nuclear Power has become a great energy source.

• Increased Renewable Energy – The most difficult to achieve on the list; renewable energy can and will be obtainable as the demand (because of ever higher energy prices) increases (and of course the supply of renewable energy will need to increase). Of course, it is hoped by the time the masses come to Renewable energy, that the technologies will have evolved to be cheaper and more efficient than their present day counterparts.

It should be noted that if I were to install Solar Panels on my house, any electricity that I do not consume is pumped back into the grid and the Power companies will actually send me a check reimbursing me for helping out. Just a positive to the panels that many people don’t consider (they actually pay for themselves with cash left over for the user).

Already, the 2008 election has picked up on the Ethanol Issue. Corn farmers love it; it raises the price of corn (supply/demand theory in action). Candidates on both sides of the aisle promise to increase funding towards ethanol studies and production. It makes Americans feel good about driving everywhere; we think that because we are using a more natural product that is made right here in America we are saving the planet and sticking to the big oil companies/energy imports.

Ethanol has some major downfalls that you won’t hear politicians talking about.

Ethanol isn’t fuel efficient. To manufacture it, you must use more energy than ethanol actually can produce. In other words, ethanol (when used as a fuel source) may provide for x amount of BTU’s (British Thermal Units, the measure of energy content) but to actually make the corn into ethanol, one must expend 2x amount of BTU’s. (Please note this isn’t the scientific amount of energy it takes to make the change, it doesn’t require 2 times the amount of energy ethanol provides to make the ethanol).

Foreign imports actually must increase to make ethanol. Although the corn used to make ethanol will come from American farmers, to actually change the corn into ethanol America will need to increase the importation of Natural Gas. So the claim that Ethanol will help America become energy independent doesn’t exactly hold up. Or Coal, a fuel American has plenty of, can be used, but that of course takes (beyond a doubt) away the claim Ethonal is good for the environment.

America doesn’t have enough corn to supply a large Ethanol market. Scientific American puts it best, “… even if 100% of the U.S. corn supply was distilled into ethanol it would supply on a small fraction of the fuel consumed by the nation’s vehicles.” Nobody can really claim that using 100% of the corn crop to make ethanol is a good trade; corn is a major product for Americans and we use corn as an important export.

Most cars and gas stations in America aren’t even equipped to handle Ethanol. Almost all of the ethanol current produced is only used as an additive to gasoline. “Traditional” engines can’t handle more than 10% ethanol; the “distilled liquor” gradually breaks down the engines. Only the “flexible fuel” cars can actually handle high content Ethanol, E85, which is 85% Ethanol, 15% gasoline. However, even if you own a car with an engine capable of taking high content Ethanol, your local gas stations may not even carry the E85 mix!

Ethanol is worth less than traditional Gasoline. A barrel of your Standard Unleaded Gasoline contains about 119,000 BTU’s however a barrel of Ethanol contains 80,000 BTU’s. Obviously this means that upon combustion, you get less bang for your buck. Scientific American suggests that “you will run dry about 33% sooner [than if you used gasoline].” Since only a fraction of the corn production will be used to make ethanol, prices would actually be higher than gasoline per gallon – and cause even more of a problem since you would have to refill a third sooner than previously.

Ethanol cannot be shipped in pipelines like gasoline, it must be trucked to every location. Water naturally occurs in pipelines, but the oil and gasoline won’t mix with the water. Ethanol however will, effectively ruining it. So to transport ethanol to the locations it is needed, trucks (using diesel, ironically a better fuel source, but not free) would have to “truck it”.

Ethanol doesn’t even reduce Greenhouse Gases! Scientists now say that Ethanol doesn’t even reduce Greenhouse gases as much as politicians claim. In fact, in some cases, Ethanol even is worse for the environment than Gasoline!

The article that I read in Scientific American does go in to more detail about other, more obscure problems with Ethanol. I won’t bore you anymore with the problems however. The last part of the article elaborates on a different type of Ethanol made using stalks and grasses; the waste products of farms. Some of the problems above still apply, however this “Cellulose Ethanol” may provide for some makeshift, transition fuel in the future. Ethanol isn’t the key to the new energy source, but it seems Americans and our elected officials haven’t seen this, yet.

Article Citation:

Wald, Matthew L. “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?” Scientific American Jan. 2007: 42-49.