COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\chapter{34ome Propositions on the Energy Crisis}
C00021 ENDMK
C⊗;
\chapter{34ome Propositions on the Energy Crisis}
\noindent There is a genuine crisis.  It has three components.

\item{1.}The  discovery  by  the Arabs  of  oil as  technique  of
political extortion.   Even if the Arabs are mollified or faced down,
the technique won't go away  until dependence on them is  eliminated.
The one sure  way of making them  back down is to  develop a credible
alternative.    The best  outcome  would be  to develop  a  source of
energy so powerful that they  will be eager to sell their  oil before
it becomes unsellable.  They  deserve to have it become unsellable as
soon as  possible,   because they  have engaged  in immoral  behavior
which  happens also  to  be  forbidden by  the  U.N. Charter.  In  my
opinion,  the use of  force should not  be excluded, but  it would be
better to get around  the necessity of using  their oil not only  for
the U.S. but for the rest of the world too.

\item{2.} The failure  of our  economic, political,   technological
and  ideological systems to avoid the  crisis that arose even without
the  Arab  extortion  attempt.    This  failure   has  the  following
components:

\itemitem{a.} The  economic  system  didn't give  the  producers  the
incentive to  have the  necessary  capacity on  hand and  to  develop
necessary  new technologies.    In  part  this is  due  to  political
interference, but even  under the best of conditions it does not work
well at anticipating  long range  requirements for qualitatively  new
technology.   It works especially badly  when the timing of  the need
for  new  technology is  uncertain  so that  it isn't  clear  that an
investment  will pay  off.    This  is particularly  applicable  now,
because  an investor in an  expensive energy process  will be holding
the bag if free competition among the oil sellers resumes.

\itemitem{b.}The  political  system  delayed the  implementation  of
necessary  decisions.   The  senators and  representatives  who voted
80-5 and 361-14 for the Alaska pipeline in November have  favored the
pipeline for several  years. However most of  them correctly believed
that the  organized enmity of the environmentalists that would result
from initiating  action made  it individually preferable  to lie  low
until  all hope of  the courts  relieving them of  the responsibility
was gone.    The  environmental  impact  statement  for  the  breeder
reactor research program is a similar case that  is now pending.  The
environmentalists  have got  their favorite  judge  to rule  that the
impact  statement   must  cover  not   merely  the   impact  of   the
demonstration reactor but  everything that may happen  if breeders go
into  widespread use.   This obviously cannot be  determined since it
depends  on future  policy  decisions,  and no  impact  statement  is
likely  to  be regarded  as  adequate  according  to these  criteria.
After another two years of delay,  Congress may act as they did  with
the  pipeline,  but  no congressman  wants  the  onus  of  initiating
action.

\itemitem{c.}  The technological  community  has pursued  parochial
interests and  continues to do so.  Thus the  attitude of some of the
Stanford faculty is not  one of trying  to determine the best  policy
and putting  their prestige and  influence behind  it.  It  is rather
for  each group to advertise the  potential advantage of funding what
they are already  doing at a  higher level.   (While they are not  at
present in  a mood to offer any  leadership themselves, they probably
would respond to leadership from the outside.)

\itemitem{d.}  The ideological system of  the country is not  sure it
wants  the problem solved at  all.  Some people  are so interested in
other problems that they will hold the economic system  hostage until
their demands are met.  Others hope  the energy crisis can be used to
make  other  people change  their  life  styles in  ways  they favor.
Others have a  general anti-technological and anti-rational  attitude
that leads  them to exaggerate  the drawbacks of  any particular move
to improve the situation. The  ideological failure to a great  extent
underlies the  other failures or  at least  partly explains why  they
haven't been fixed.

\noindent (The  notion of  an  ideological system  of  a society  as  a
parallel  to the  economic, political,  and technological  systems is
non-standard, but I  think it is  justified.  Consider  it to be  the
complex of mechanisms  whereby the attitudes of  large groups towards
life in general and the other systems in particular is determined.)

	As  a  specific example  of the  effects  of ideology  on the
energy problem, consider that many people will be  disappointed if it
turns out  that there will be  energy enough so that  people who like
big cars will  be able  to continue  to operate  them.   Much of  the
current  ecological   movements  to  prohibit   this  or   that  have
motivations  similar to  those that led  to religious  persecution in
the 18th century, prohibition in the early part of this  century, and
the current desire  in some parts of our population  to prohibit long
hair and  marijuana. Actual faults are magnified, once one group gets
the idea  into its heads  that it  has the  mission of improving  the
morals  of another.  I recommend  reading The  Waste  Makers by
Vance Packard and The Greening  of America by Charles Reich  as
examples of moralism rampant.

\item{3.}The third component of the energy  crisis is the fact that
the  world will run  out of  petroleum and natural  gas in so  near a
future that it is necessary  to start reducing our reliance on  these
sources of energy right away.

\noindent I wish to advance the following proposals:

\item{1.}We should  and can solve  the energy problem.   By solving
the  energy  problem,   I  mean  getting so  large  and  reliable and
expandable a  source of  energy so  that energy  does  not limit  the
economic  system of  the United  States and  the rest  of the  world.
Putting  it more concretely, energy  is to be  available in a variety
of forms  at prices  not much  different from  those we  pay now  and
unrationed,  so that consumption  is limited  only by  willingness to
pay the  price.   (I  don't advocate  taking the  responsibility  for
other people's energy problems, but we can  solve our own problems in
a way  that does not interfere with their  ability to solve their own
and in a way they can  emulate).  If someone thinks we should  change
our  life styles  for some  reason, let  him argue  the point  on its
merits  but  not club  us  into his  way  of life  by  preventing the
solution of the energy problem.

\item{2.}The best  solution of our immediate  problems and for  the
next 15 to  20 years is to  build a very large number  of the present
more or less standardized nuclear reactors.

\item{3.} At  pre  energy  crisis  schedules,  these  reactors were
taking ten years to get  into operation from the utility  decision to
go ahead.   President Nixon proposes reducing this to  six years.  In
my opinion,  we  can build  them  in two  years  if we  give  it  the
priority Nixon proposes.  This is based on  the fact that the Hanford
reactor system  which has about the same  capacity as a present power
station was built  in two years  starting one  month after the  first
chain  reaction  was   achieved,  i.e.  with  no   prototype  and  no
experience.    At  present we  have  an industry  that  has  built 30
nuclear  power plants  already  and  has standard  designs  that  are
adequate.   If we decide to  build a large number the  cost should go
way down as the industry learns how to do it.

\item{4.}The first goal is to stop  using petroleum and natural gas
to  produce electricity.    At present  prices this  will  require an
investment of  about \$50,000,000,000,  i.e. about  2/3  of one  years
defense  budget  or   about  1/3  of  one   years  annual  industrial
investment.   This goal could be achieved in three years allowing one
year to get started and two years to build the  plants and putting an
investment of  \$25 billion per year.   You may  squabble over whether
government  or  industry  should  make  this  investment,  but  don't
squabble too long; I want to turn my thermostat back up.

To this should be added the investment  required to increase electric
capacity to meet demand.

\item{5.} The  next goal  is  to replace  natural  gas  by hydrogen
obtained by separating water  into hydrogen and oxygen using  nuclear
energy using  electrolysis if necessary but  using heat if it  can be
done   more  efficiently   that  way.     If   it  has  to   be  done
electrolytically, present  prices of electric  power correspond to  a
price  of gas of  xx per thousand  cubic feet  of natural gas.   This
compares with a price  of \$.18 that  preferred customers are  getting
now and \$1.00 that some new users are having to pay.

\noindent Present reserves of natural  gas will last about yy  years at
the  rate demand is  increasing, and we  should plan  to complete the
transition before the reserves are  exhausted.  For lack of a  better
idea, suppose  we consider  starting three years  from now  and build
capacity linearly  until the process is completed in 1985.  This will
require an investment of zzz per year.

\item{1.}Finally,  we  need to  replace petroleum  as  a source  of
vehicle  fuel.   Present electric  plants produce  energy at  a price
corresponding to 25 cents per  gallon of gasoline which is about  the
present wholesale  price of gasoline.   From the production  point of
view the  simplest solution is again to use hydrogen, and the problem
of propelling cars with hydrogen  has been studied.  The  engines run
well  on hydrogen  with little  modification, but  storage  of liquid
hydrogen in the car is a problem.  The main disadvantage of  hydrogen
is its bulk,  the low temperature  required for storing it,  and some
safety  problems.   Still, undoubtedly the  public will  accept these
disadvantages rather than  give up cars  or seriously restrict  their
performance.

\noindent The  following  alternative  should  be  considered:  Extract
carbon  dioxide  from  the air  and  water from  the  main  and using
nuclear energy  synthesize the  hydrocarbon motor fuels  we know  and
love.  If  this can be done, we can  continue our squabbles about how
to prevent smog without more  than a brief interruption.  (Seriously,
the automobile  smog problem  is solvable  using internal  combustion
engines  long  before  we  can  get  much  hydrocarbon  from  nuclear
sources).  The main advantage  of this over the hydrogen solution  is
fuel of reasonable density.   An advantage over taking petroleum from
the  ground is that  this scheme  will not affect  the carbon dioxide
concentration of  the atmosphere  since the amount  taken out  equals
the  amount put  back  in.   The  main technological  problem is  the
chemistry and  chemical  engineering  of  getting  hydrocarbons  from
carbon dioxide and  water and energy  in a reasonably  efficient way.
This  problem  hasn't  been  tackled  but  shouldn't be  insuperable.
Anyway, this  is worth looking  at.   If extraction of carbon dioxide
from the air is not immediately feasible, the it can be obtained from
calcium  carbonate,  e.g.  limestone,  which  is  available  in  beds
thousands of feet thick.
\vfill\eject
\end