Page 2874 - 1970S

----~~=-~-----===~~----~=-=---------=-=~intnAh
cent conversion efficiency, the total U.S.
demand for electricity could be met. So–
lar heating and cooling programs could
save the equivalen! of 1 níillion bbl. óf
oil daily by 1985. This is because more
than 80% of the average homeowner's
energy bill is for heating, cooling, and
hot water. One quarter of the energy
consumed in the U.S. goes to this end.
The challenge is to come up with
cheap and reliable systems. So far, solar
energy has had only very limited use.
This is partly because we have had
abuodaot, cheap fossil fuels in the ·past.
Solar energy developmeot is also very
capital-intensive. lo four years, federal
funding for solar-energy research has
gone from less than 1 mill)on dollars to
more than 100 million. The Energy Re–
search and Development Administra–
tion (ERDA) has a fiscal '76 budget of
$144 million for solar research. But even
with lavish governmeot support experts
caution that it will be many years before
this energy source accounts for any ap–
preciable port.ioo of the natioo's oeeds. .
Wind-geouated eledricity is beio¡¡ re–
boro in certaio areas of the country
where wiod velocities average )5 to 20
miles per hour. This geoerally occurs in
coastal regions, the Great Plains and on
the U.S.-Canadiao bordee. Hill and
mountain tops are also likely locations.
Huge ( 190 megawatt) systerns are being
P.laoned, requiring 50 to 100 windrnills
per 50 acres of laod. '
The primary difficulty is that wind is
intermittent, hence the need for suitable
storage devices for the geoerated elec–
tricity. Wbether wind can make a sig–
nifican! contributioo to our energy
needs remaios to beseen.
Geothennat eoergy is a bright pros–
pect, especially west of the Rockies. At–
ready dry steam frorn the Big Geyser
area north of San Francisco is gener–
ating the equivalen! of half the city's
electrical power. "Hot·rock." technology
is also being explored in other parts of
the southwestem U.S. But technical
problems, high brine concentrations,
and a relative paucity of suitable·sites
may Jimit geothermal energy to speciat
localities.
Fusioo eoergy also has great potentiat
if it can be perfected in the laboratory
and developed on a comme.rciat scale. 1f
eurrent auempts prove successful, man–
kind would have a virtually unlimited
source of clean power at his disposal,
since the raw materials of nuclear fusioo
are abundantly available frorn oceao
water.
Yet at present, fusion power remains
only a hope for the future. A break–
through may. occur tornorrow. On the
other hand, controlled nuclear fusion oo
a comrnercial "scale rnay elude man's
rnastery inde6nitely.
Other more exotic energy altematives
atso exist. Tides, ocean thermat dilfer–
ences, and bio-mass fuels rnay be uti–
lized for tomorrow's energy oeeds. But
one fact is certain. 1t would be foolhardy
to place total reliance oo any one source
of future power. None of the known
encrgy alternatives are justilication for
perpetua! power profligacy, and sorne
may prove to be more of a pipe dream
.than a panacea. o
12
What power sources can we
count on In the future? W/11 con–
servatlon play an illJporlant part
In tomorrow's energy plcture? To
1/nd out, Plaln Truth lntervlewed a
representativa from the Center for
Strateg/c end·lnternatrona/ Stud–
les, Georgetown Universlty,
Wa~hlngton, D.C.
Plajo Truth: Mr. Murray, are we facing
a long-term eoergy crisis or is the cur–
rent problem merely a temporary incon–
venieoce to the American people?
Murray: 1 think the general public has
simply not grasped the seriousness of
the eoergy crisi~. We have experienced a
fundamental change in our basic energy
requirements. And the public has oot
really recognized the fundamental na–
luce of this change ·aod become willing
to accept the necessary chaoges in their
life-styles, the tnconvenience, and possi–
bly even sorne degree of hardsbip. 1
think people have tended to wish the
problem a_way and have been uowilling
to squarely face the facts.
Plain Truth: A lot of people are saying
that the Uohed States doeso't have a
national energy policy. Is this true?
Murray: lo a sense, that's correct.l thiok.
what we're doiog now is struggling tO
form a national energy policy. There's a
lot of conftict and disagreemeot both oo
basic objectives and on how oo~ should
go about obtaining them. 1 th.ink it's
going to take us sorne time before we
truly ilrrive al what we call a national
eoergy policy.
Plain Truth: What percentage ofour en–
ergy requirements is S'!pplied by the
various fuels we are curreotly using?
Murray: Basically there are three main
fuels. About 45% of our current eoergy
needs comes from petroleurn; another
30% comes from natural gas. Tbose two
make up about 75% of our curren! en–
ergy consurnption. The remainder of our
energy sources come from either coa!,
hydroclectric, or nuclear power.
Plain Truth: Do you e~pect these per-
centages to change radically in the next
few years?.
Murray: No, oot in the next few years.
The system that we have evolved over
the last eighty years, is so large, so com–
plex, · and so thoroughly interwoven
• throughout our economic and social sys–
tems that it's very difficult to change it
rapidly witbout tremeodous upheaval.
That's why imports will undoubtedly
contioue for maoy years.
Plain Truth: How rnuch of our total en–
ergy supply is imported?
Murray: We curreotly import some–
where betweeo si.x aod seveo million
barreis of petroleum every day. This is
about 40% of our petroleum con–
sumption. We also import a significan!
amount of natural gas. In total, we prob–
ably import in the neighborhood of
about a fifth ofour total eoergy require–
ments right now.
Plain Truth: Is the United States' more
dependent upoo foreign soúrces today
than say five years ago?
Murray: lo terms of petroleum, we're
importing almost twice as much as we
were in 1970. That's nota very comfort–
iog fact, and it's unlik.ely to cbaoge in
the near future. fn fact, assurning there
is a significant economic recovery in the
next si.x mooths to a year, it's probable
that those imports will go up,.not down.
Plaln Truth: What impact will the Alas–
ka n pipeline have on our eoergy supply?
Murray: The. pipeline capacity has becn
stated at about two millioo barreis per
day.ln terrns ofour curreot production,
this would be about a 6fth of our do–
mestically produced petroleum. So it is
significant.
Plalo Truth: Wbere does.nudear energy
ra nk. as an altemative energy source in
comparisoo to fossil-type fuels.
Murray: Basically, nuclear power is used
for the generation of electrical energy.
This in sorne degree limits its appli–
cability, particularly to the currenl eco–
nomic systel'b. with its investrnent in
consumer aod industrial goods that use
fuels other than e lectrical eoergy. Of
course, the problems with it are gener–
ally k.nown, as are the problems with
fossil fue!. So one has to trade one
against the other.
Plalo Truth: Would it be better to
bequeath .to Óur children adequate
power with the respoosibility of cariog
for ¡adioactive. wastes than to leave
them deficient in energy?
Murray: This is the crux of the dilemma
we face with nuclear power, as well as
with other forms of energy. How does
one weigh the pte!>ent benefits from the
energy which we would obtain or from
the power we g¡:t versus the future long–
ron cost? Personally, in terms of waste
disposal, 1 feel a little more optimistic–
than 1do about sorne of the other prob–
lems with nuclear energy. I think within
100 or 200 years we will lind a way to
effectively utilize tbese very waste mate–
rials whicb are giving us sucb a problem.
Plain Truth: Wbat about coa!?
Murray: Coa! has sorne problems associ–
ated with it too. They involve both the
mining (strip vs. underground) and the
air poUution associated with burning the
coal once one gets it out of tbe g.round to
the powér . plant. Neither of these are
trivial problems if one inteods to in–
crease the amount of electric power
which is provided by coa!. They can
both become very signi6cant.
So you're confronted with a dilemma
between the eovironrnental problems as–
sociated witb one fue! versus the envi–
ronmental problems associated with
another. These are the types of things
that societies have to weigh and evaluate.
Plain Truth: Is energy from controlled
nuclear fusion a likely prospect in the
next 25 years?
~urray: Fusioo energy is really in its
infancy. 1 think frorn that one must con–
elude that fusion power in a commercial
sense is many years away. Probably one
really ought to think in terms of decades
rather tlfan years.
Plaio Truth: ls it true that if we keep
increasing our demands as in the past
few yea"rs that we'll need to complete
one new power plaot every 25 days for
the nel(t 20 years?
Murray:· That's probably a conservati ve
estimate cornpared with sorne that !'ve
heard. We ntay well be faced with that
situation íf we continue to increase our
eoergy coosurnption the y,·ay we have in
the past. Of course, the y,·hole poiot of
mueh of the debate aod discussion going
on oow revolves arouod the ideas of
cooservation and of changing the energy
coosumption pattems ofthe people.
Pl ai o Trutb: You mentioned con–
servation. lf we curtail or drastically re–
duce consumptioo of energy, wiiJ this
advérsely affect the economy?
Murray: Tbere seems to be a very dÍrecl
relationship between energy con–
sumption and various measures of eco–
nomic well-being. Sorne people use
GNP, sorne peóple use employment,
sorne use disposable income. No matter
what you use, traditionally and histori–
cally, we've had a very tight relationship
betweeo increases in energy con–
sumption and increases in economic
weU-being. lt's unlik.ely that we can
change this relationship quick.ty. Now,
in the long pul! 1 thi.nk we can malee
sorne changes and perhaps we can reas–
sess the connection between energy and
ecoriornic growth. But it will take time.
It will not happeo qui~ly.
Plaln Truth: What can the average citi–
zen do to conserve energy in a mean–
ingfut way'l
Mürray: 1 thiok. the biggest tbing the
average citizeo can do is to reorieot hlm–
self, to view his actions and activiti~ in
terrns of their eoergy consumption. In
other words, .he should be eoergy con–
scious.
Tbere are many little th.ings which he
might do. We did many of them - if
yotr'll recall - in 1974 during the oil
embargo. Peqple were asked to tum
their thermostats down, and most of
them really did.
People were ask.ed to car pool, and
they did; and tak.e the bus, and they did.
But sornewhere along the way we lost
our commitment. It had a lot to do with
thiogs that took place shortly thereafter
involving Watergate and involving the
con6dence that people had in ~heir gov–
ernrnent. That was a very unfortunate
sequence ofevents because 1 think we
lost that edge whicb y,•e bad in 1974. llut
1 thiok. cooservatioo is very importan t. 1
thiok. we're going to have to learn to
make it a meaningful part of our every–
day life. o
WEEK ENDINO DECEMBER 6, 1975