Oil Problems Too
Coal and coal-fired furnaces are not the only trouble. Along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, where residual oil powers many utilities, shortages are occurring — and prices are on the rise.
New York City is a case in point. Here electricity prices are highest in the United States — just $10.00 per 250 kilowatt-hours, compared with Los Angeles at $5.63 per 250 kilowatt-hours.
Foreign residual oil must be shipped long distances to reach U.S. ports, and prices increase with transportation costs.
The problem of getting oil is further complicated by the fact that 9 out of 10 wells sunk are dry! Each well drilled on land in the United States costs in excess of $50,000. Ten times that amount is spent for the average off-shore well, and over $1 million for the average Alaskan well!
And — it takes from 3 to 10 years for a field to go from initial discovery to full production.
To be sure, there is No present worldwide oil shortage. There are, in fact, surpluses.
Nevertheless, America and the western world continue to suck up and consume oil at an increasing rate.
By 1950, twice as much crude oil was produced as had been in 1945. By 1960 production doubled again, now 1000 million tons. Eight years later, in 1968, it doubled again. Forecasts say it will AGAIN double, to 4000 million tons, by 1980.
With only growth in sight, we need to stop and ask ourselves some questions. How great are total fuel reserves? Can we really continue to use up these resources at an ever-increasing rate?
A Prognostication
In 1963, geochemist Harrison Brown, biochemist James Bonner and psychologist John Weir, published The Next Hundred Years. In their study, completed under the auspices of the California Institute of Technology, certain estimates were made concerning various sectors of the world economy.
One of the items considered was the world supply of fuels.
 |
They foresaw the future possibility of using energy equaling 100 BILLION tons of coal annually! Do we have sufficient coal, oil and natural gas to fulfill such voracious demands?
At the time, estimates put the total world supply of coal which could be practically mined at 2500 billion tons. This alone would provide the world's energy needs — at the then current rate of expenditure — for about 700 years.
Estimates of oil reserves were put at 1250 billion barrels. This could be equated to about 280 billion tons of coal. Adding actual coal and natural gas, the sum of these various sources of fuels amounts to the equivalent of about 3700 billion tons of coal.
Resource experts estimate that at current rates of expenditure the fuel supply should be sufficient to last for a thousand years.
But the rate of consumption is skyrocketing. Resources are dwindling alarmingly. Said authors Brown, Bonner and Weir: "At a twenty-five times greater rate of consumption, they would last only another FORTY YEARS . . . and we must recognize that, once our petroleum and coal have been consumed, as far as the human species is concerned, they will have disappeared forever" (The Next Hundred Years, pp. 99-100).
It is of course very difficult to estimate "proved resources," especially of oil. Said resources expert Hans Lands-berg: "Petroleum history is littered with the remains of obsolete guesses, some of which have turned out to be spectacularly wrong. . .
"One of the reasons is that only that relatively small part of oil occurrences that exploratory drilling has proved to exist can be correctly said to be 'known.' Beyond, short of systematically digging up the first 60,000 feet of the earth's crust from pole to pole, one can go only by inference" (Natural Resources for U.S. Growth, Hans Landsberg, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1964, p. 177).
The point is — there may be more, but there may also be much less oil than is expected. Energy requirements are also little more than guesses based on past increases and hypothetical future considerations.
|
But, however long these fuels last, they may one day be used up. They are NON-renewable.
The Nuclear Power "Panacea"
Nuclear power plants have failed to become the great boon they were once expected to be.
Soon after World War II, the "peaceful atom" was predicted to be the power of the future. After all, coal, oil, and other fuels caused pollution. Nuclear energy was clean, authorities assured us.
Coal mining operations slowed their progress, bowing to the "peaceful atom." Many coal miners were thrown out of work. Large regions, especially in Appalachia, became depressed areas.
But many complications have arisen for nuclear energy.
For one — it does pollute!
Potentially, nuclear energy is much more dangerous and deadly than either oil or coal. A certain amount of radioactivity is inevitably released during the production of nuclear fuel for power plants, although this is generally conceded to be minor.
There is also a storage problem — how to handle the 3.5 million gallons of high-level waste estimated to be produced yearly by 1980.
Too Hot to Handle
Nuclear power plants have also come under attack in recent years because of a "new" type of pollution — thermal pollution.
The nuclear reaction produces heat to generate steam. This steam turns giant turbines, which in turn generate electricity. As much as 50% of the heat created is "wasted." It must be taken away by the cool waters of a river, lake, and ocean — or by expensive evaporative cooling towers.
This waste heat is detrimental to life in the surrounding waters. It lowers the oxygen content and drives the water temperature up. Many desirable forms of life are destroyed, and undesirable forms proliferate in the process. The delicate thread of life is broken, and ecology suffers. Rivers "die." Man suffers kickbacks, too.
Thermal and radioactive pollution are the "last straw" in the pollution controversy. They have caused a concerned and frightened segment of society to bring pressure against nuclear power plants. The whole U.S. nuclear plant program, as a consequence, has been delayed by 2 to 5 years.
Some look beyond fission (which supplies about 2% of present U.S. energy needs) and fusion (not even tapped yet) to a process called MHD — magneto hydrodynamics. But this is still dependent on a coal supply — and is presently only theoretical.
Environment Takes the Brunt
That perhaps is where the current energy crisis is — the destruction of our "good earth" as a direct result of our increased demands upon it. One specialist, Mr. Harry Perry, put it this way: "Do you want to improve the quality of the environment, or do you want the electricity to come on as you need it?"
This earth, after all, is a "closed system." It operates as a unit, and renews, replenishes, and purifies itself without any outside help other than energy from the sun.
There are limits to the earth's capabilities. Only certain quantities of additional carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, lead, etc., from the burning of fuels, can be absorbed into the system. Only a limited amount of extra heat can be absorbed by our streams before some life forms begin to suffer. Only so much radioactive waste can be absorbed. Then deformities and abnormalities in life forms occur.
We all know these basic facts!
The question is, does convenience of energy for the moment justify future ecological disaster — the possible destruction of life within a generation?
Most — if not all — of man's MAJOR exploits of his only environment are out of step with the natural regenerative processes on earth.
It's time man took a long look at fuels — and our spiraling increase in energy consumption — and asked some basic questions: Do we really need all this energy? Why did we build our economic structure on polluting, nonrenewable resources? There are, after all, other forms of energy available.
Thinking the Unthinkable
Even as polluting as the nonrenewable fuels are, they are not the central problem in themselves. It is man's exploitation of them for selfish profit and convenience which is at the heart of the problem.
For example, suppose man were to harness the sun's non-polluting energy. Would he use it wisely? Or would he turn it to profit-seeking and selfish, destructive uses? The history of man's greed is NOT reassuring.
It is becoming increasingly clear that man must totally re-evaluate concepts concerning the structure of society. The concentration of population, of industry, of power generation is increasingly bringing us closer to a date with disaster.
We are encountering massive problems of distribution. We are faced with wholesale destruction of the landscape. We find it less and less practical to utilize RENEWABLE sources of energy. The mammoth industrial demands of our highly technological society could not be supplied enough energy from simple wood burning or other similar renewable sources of energy. There just isn't enough wood; and other renewable sources — tide power, geothermal steam, and solar energy — are not developed.
In fact, to depend on these energy forms would require us to restructure society to a much simpler form, reducing total energy consumption, perhaps eliminating many of our "energy slaves."
Dr. James P. Lodge, Jr. of the National Center for Atmosphere Research in Boulder, Colorado had this to say:
"We must limit our own population it is true, but it is even more necessary to impose a program of rigorous birth control on our energy slaves. To say that this program is an enormous program of RETHINKING PRIORITIES is to state the obvious, but it is nonetheless true."
The Greatest Change of ALL
We need to consider a change of approach in dealing with our environment. We have been careless — blasé — in our use of this earth. We have polluted, raped and destroyed the earth God gave us.
Are we yet willing to cease the greedy and ignorant destruction we have caused? At the present time mankind as a whole is not yet ready to make this necessary change. Because the biggest change needed is a change in man's basic nature and outlook in life. Man's nature is one of getting for the self instead of giving. Man has taken from the earth — instead of taking care of it.
Will man go too far — so far he can't cleanse this earth of its pollution? Will man respond in time to the moaning and groaning of the earth? Some authorities warn that man may already have gone too far — that it may already be too late to save this earth from man's devastating exploitation.
Almost 2000 years ago, a great teacher wrote: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22). That scripture has come to pass in our day. Our earth is wounded and we are wielding the death weapon. It may kill us! Unless we change.