America needs an energy strategy that ensures our continued leadership role in the world and results in a guaranteed and affordable supply of energy for generations to come. This strategy requires the support of government, private industry and all other stakeholders, but cannot be driven by politics (much easier said than done). An energy strategy driven by politics will almost always be short-sighted (possibly no longer than four years), narrow in scope (which special interest groups screamed the loudest), and for all practicality, a formula for spending lots of hard-earned taxpayer dollars with questionable long-term benefit. A meaningful energy strategy must endure long beyond the next election and it must foster and leverage energy independence for the benefit of our national security.
It is hoped that NewEnergy2040 can facilitate a bold new direction and maybe even encourage some new paradigms for America’s energy production and use. In so doing, as stated earlier, it could be so significant as to be analogous to going back to the moon. Those of us who experienced that period in our history saw a nation united behind a common goal and a national excitement and pride seldom seen anywhere else in modern times. NewEnergy2040 will pose substantial challenges; yes, but we did get to the moon in a short eighteen years after we as a country became committed to that goal. This initiative in many ways is not any less daunting or challenging than that was. As a country we need something to unite us again and to renew hat spirit of exploration and ingenuity. Adopting this initiative can renew those qualities in our people and it will require nothing less if we are to succeed.
NewEnergy2040 is a long-term proposal and one that realistically will not be fully in place until 2040 and beyond. It focuses primarily on electrical power production, but all our energy needs and all viable sources of energy must be considered in a long-term energy strategy. For any long-term energy strategy it is important that energy diversity be continued and NewEnergy2040 is consistent with that objective. In so doing we must continue use of many of our current energy sources (with technological improvements) through a transition period to new source(s) of energy that will become the bedrock of our energy supply for many generations (maybe centuries) to come.
The NewEnergy2040 initiative must also satisfy other objectives including environmental stewardship, affordability, and rationality. All actions need to pass a common sense test, which I’m sure many would agree, has lately been in short supply. As these initiatives are presented some may choose to call me anti-renewables, anti-environmental, or maybe even crazy. I plead not guilty to all those charges, and believe strongly that going forth with energy proposals such as those described in the Green New Deal do not meet the common sense test and would be no less than a catastrophe. Call me extreme if you like, but in my view, renewables for all our energy supply is not achievable and spending many trillions of hard-earned ratepayer and taxpayer dollars trying to achieve it is nothing short of fiscal, and I think even, moral malpractice. There is a much better way and I believe America has the wherewithal to achieve it. But time passes and we have none to spare. We must turn the ship as quickly and as rapidly as possible.
Critics of NewEnergy2040 will also argue that this initiative does not adequately take into account issues associated with climate change. Quite the contrary! Whether you agree with the climate change alarmist theories, or not; inherent in NewEnergy2040 proposals is a significant reduction or elimination of many of the pollutants that stem from our energy production processes. Again, common sense urges us not to dive off that all-renewables-or-nothing bridge into a dry river bed, but rather to employ solutions that will reduce all levels and types of pollution for the overall betterment of the environment. NewEnergies2040 will accomplish exactly that, although undoubtedly, achieving the outcomes of this initiative will take time which is not only common sense but necessary to achieve a balance between environmental benefits and the economic health and vitality of our country.
With the above as a backdrop, the “grand staircase” of NewEnergy2040 is to put into production one or more revolutionary source(s) of energy yet to be brought to fruition. Among other things, these source(s) must be safe; cost effective; friendly to the environment; and have a fuel supply that is plentiful, accessible, and sustainable for the foreseeable future (multiple generations, maybe centuries). Moreover, we must seek to ensure that the best available technology is implemented for the chosen sources(s). While experience drives me to potential new nuclear sources, at the outset there should be no new source(s) exempt from consideration. A plan must be put in place for selecting technologies that we as a country should pursue and how the required research and development, design, and construction processes should proceed. This end will require a unified effort by both government and private industry and a strong national will to get it done.
My ultimate vision and hope is to be moving ahead with one or more new energy sources by 2040 and to transition to those source(s) in the decades that follow. There may be long-term uses for our current sources of energy, but at the very least they are necessary through the transition period. Make no mistake, our new energy future is over the horizon and it will take multiple decades to get there, but one thing for sure is that we will not get beyond the horizon unless we set sail now and begin our search for favorable winds.
To anecdotally expand on the point of utilizing the best available technology, I refer to my more than three decades of experience in the nuclear industry (beginning back in the early 1970’s). As some may recall, in the early 70’s nuclear power had a very bright future and was dubbed as a source of energy that would be “too cheap to meter”. For these and other reasons a number of domestic companies dove in with both feet (General Electric, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) and General Atomics), each with their own reactor designs. General Electric and Westinghouse soon became the “big guerillas” in the industry and dominated the marketplace. General Electric developed boiling water reactor (BWR) technology and Westinghouse, leveraging their expertise in Nuclear Navy applications, developed commercial pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology. Both Combustion and B&W also developed PWR designs and General Atomics adopted the high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) technology.
Why do I go through the effort to describe the nuclear marketplace in the 1970’s? First I want to state that I am all for competition and in most cases “may the best man win”, but I must also state that with regard to development of the US commercial nuclear industry I am personally not convinced that all the best technologies prevailed. I believe HTGR technology had a number of compelling benefits (and advantages) over the other technologies, not the least of which were potentially simpler designs, higher efficiencies, less waste and maybe even some safety advantages. They had their problems too, like coolant pumps that had inherent problems with containing the helium coolant. Nonetheless, General Atomics was not able to compete with the big guerillas and as such the HTGR design never saw the “light of day” in the US industry. I believe that that was unfortunate. Another point, which some would argue is contrary to furthering competition, was that the multiple designs may have had a “dilution” effect on the intellectual resources in the industry. Oh yes, each company had good people, but for example unlike the Nuclear Navy or NASA, all the best people may not have been concentrating on the best technology.
History also teaches us another painful lesson. We must be wary of suffocating regulation and oftentimes over-zealous regulators. Sure, strong oversight is necessary although I would also suggest that there is nothing sinister about the overseers being on the team. Did I hear someone say fox-in-the-henhouse? Sure that’s a concern, but in the NewEnergy2040 world we need to challenge ourselves to a new paradigm that will keep the hens safe while also giving the foxes their due. We need common sense regulation and oversight that complements the designers, constructors, and operators to ensure safe and efficient, but also, affordable facilities. By combining common sense oversight with reasonable standards, strong process control with excellence in workmanship, and proactive problem identification with effective corrective action, we can meet the challenge without having to call in pest control.
So Where Are We Now?
Presently in this country (and the world for that matter) the energy sources race has fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) in the lead with nuclear slowly fading in second place and renewables bringing up the rear. I strongly believe that for the near-term (a couple decades) most of these sources must continue to provide substantial contributions to our energy needs. Some warn that continued use of fossil fuels will turn our planet into a cinder in less than 10 years. I consider that rhetoric to be pure poppycock and reject such doomsday forecasts. With that said, it will become apparent that NewEnergy2040 has the potential to dramatically change the future energy mix in the US as current technologies are improved and as new technologies emerge.
To get the best sense of where one is trying to go it is important to understand where one is starting from. Our starting points look something like this:
[April 24, 2021: To prefix the following starting point narratives I note that what is described in large part is representative of how I believe things were as of the end of 2020. In 2021, with a new Administration, we’ve entered a period of extreme hostility toward an energy policy that is centered on fossil fuels and other conventional energy sources (e.g., nuclear). The future of these energy sources is clearly in peril going forward, and if the hostilities are not tamped down, energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear could die painful and grievous deaths, with our economy to follow. As difficult as it is to contemplate the disaster which is the Green New Deal, it may now be a possibility and America could be on a path to an energy and economic catastrophe. To some extent the dye is already being cast by some of the recent executive orders that have been issued, the economy destroying climate change proclamations that have been made, and the appointment of energy policy extremists to cabinet and high level Administration positions. Whoa, is America’s near-term energy future!]
[March 7, 2022: It is yet again necessary for me to further prefix the following narratives as our current Administration continues down its path of destructive energy policies that are being manifested in, among other things, higher gas prices and inflation. Further, these policies have ended a short period of domestic energy independence, while heralding in a new era of dependence upon counties and regimes that hate us. As Americans watch with horror in real time a war rages in Ukraine while our leadership doubles down on their failed energy policies. Would anyone have imagined that a country blessed with major energy reserves such as ours would be at the mercy of countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for a significant portion of its energy needs? Believe it, it’s true!]
[June 22, 2022: More and continuing bad news for energy sanity and for NewEnergy2040. Even as inflation and energy prices rage; the administration’s intent is now abundantly clear. And unfortunately, as they double-down on their destructive and moronic Green New Deal energy policies, the carnage will probably continue for the full tenure of this president. I am now of the belief that NewEnergy2040 initiatives cannot be achieved in the timeframe originally laid out. At that time the extreme hostilities to existing energy sources (except wind and solar, of course), nor the multiple giant steps backward from where we were in 2020, could not possibly be foreseen. Conceptually and physically nothing changes, just the timeframe. Patience! 2045, or even 2050, will be soon enough to secure our energy future.]
[January 16, 2023: To America’s grave detriment, the war on fossil fuels and conventional sources of energy rages on. The first battles of the war were fought over coal, and with some wins under their belt, the Administration has turned their attention to natural gas. The attacks are not only on gas used for energy production, but also gas for such vital purposes as cooking, and even heating. The insanity includes shutting down gas generating facilities, promulgating regulations to stop or curtail the use of gas in existing homes and buildings, or imposing building codes that forbid gas infrastructure in new buildings. States are also passing laws to encumber personal and commercial transportation, and manufacturers of cars and trucks are adopting plans to end the production of internal combustion engines long before it may be practical to put our transportation needs on the backs of electric vehicles. Climate change is their mantra. Climate change hysteria may very well be our downfall. NewEnergy2040 maintains that major energy shifts must occur over periods of decades and our plan reflects that. Unfortunately, we currently have a party of fanatics in charge that believe such a shift can occur overnight; just issue decrees and it will happen. Can we hang on till 2024 without incurring irreparable harm? We must!]
[December 06, 2023: Some probably read the dire warnings in the previous paragraphs and deemed them to be “crying wolf” or predicting that the sky was falling. Any objective assessment of where we are today compared to three years ago would have to conclude, quite the contrary. We now are at a place where two-thirds of our coal fired facilities have either been shut down or are planned to be shut down in the near-term future. To make matters worse, in the last few days at the UN Climate Change Conference we have committed to shutting down the remaining third and never daring to build another one. Further, in the very same conference other traditional energy sources are being sent to the guillotine awaiting their fate. But why stop there! The ways in which we illuminate, heat, cool, cook, and drive are all under scrutiny and smothering regulations are in the works to asphyxiate them all. There was a time when we feared we would be sent back to the Dark Ages by nuclear war. Sadly, climate change idiocy may get us there without a single supercriticality.]
Oil: Oil is clearly a significant part of our current energy picture most obviously for transportation fuels (cars, trucks, planes, trains, etc.), and regardless of the current Administration’s hostilities toward oil, will remain that way for decades. Further, we must remember that oil has many other uses such as for heating, asphalt, and feedstocks for chemicals, plastics and synthetic materials that are in nearly everything we use. Oil production in the US had been increasing dramatically which was a very favorable trend from an energy and national security standpoint. Unfortunately since 2020 increases in offshore drilling, opening up of new reserves, or continued development of other domestic sources such as oil shale and tar sands has been stymied. Oil must also be refined and even though refining capacity in the US has been strained for decades, thanks to the innovation of our oil companies we have been able to maintain sufficient production from existing facilities to meet the market demands. We need new refining capacity, but there is no hope of that unless we elect leaders that have the common sense to understand the need and the sensibility of an energy policy such as that being advocated here.
Some have suggested that electric vehicles are the way to displace the use of oil as the predominant fuel for our cars and trucks. The federal government has chosen to try to force a rapid transition to electric vehicles by imposing emission standards that most internal combustion engines will not be able to meet. This is clearly an eliminate the competition strategy. Then too, some states have passed legislation to also try to force such changes and some manufacturers have announced near-term transitions to all electric vehicles. Does this pass the common sense test? Of course not! To wholly commit to electric at the outset is very premature and to think that a world with all electric vehicles can be achieved in something less than a couple decades (2040 and beyond) is total fantasy. Advocates cloak their love of electrification within their irrational climate change mantra, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the huge environmental problems that go with it. Among the biggest is the supply chain for batteries. This supply chain is nearly all China and is an environmental disaster when considering mining, manufacturing and in the end, disposal. Another is the question of where does all the energy come from to keep these millions of electric vehicles charged and operating? Windmills and solar panels? I don’t think so!
Coal: Coal was once by far the predominant fuel source for electrical power in the United States. However in recent decades, driven by a dramatic drop in natural gas prices, there was a major shift to gas fired power production. Thus, by 2020 coal had declined as an energy source accounting for about 25% of our electrical supply. Since then, again because of hostilities toward fossil fuel, that percentage has declined even further. A major irony in this whole scenario, is that coal has been the beneficiary of recent technological advancements. Through these technological improvements newer coal-fired facilities are much cleaner than they have ever been, and as part of proposed NewEnergy2040 objectives, could see further significant advancements. Through improvements in equipment to reduce emissions and by implementing other processes, such as coal gasification, clean coal should continue to be a significant contributor to our energy mix for the foreseeable future.
Natural Gas: Natural gas has also been the beneficiary of advancements in technology, not the least of which, has been the development of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which significantly increased the quantities of gas extracted and US natural gas reserves, As the supply increased, the basic economic principle of supply-and-demand took over, driving natural gas prices down dramatically. This, as indicated above, resulted in major increases in the use of gas for electrical power production. And as a result, by 2020, gas had become the leading source of energy for that purpose. That too, was a good trend until the aforementioned hostilities began facilitating the possible demise of the energy golden goose. This is a devastating blow to America’s economic wellbeing and our energy leadership position in the world not just because gas is plentiful and economical but also because, all things considered, is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels.
Recent innovations with respect to the liquefaction of natural gas (LNG) also contributed to an increased demand and created the ability to transport gas in large quantities without a pipeline. This in effect expanded the marketplace for natural gas and its uses, and also gave the US the ability to become a major exporter. Of course this opened up the world as a marketplace for us, but also gave foreign users the prospect of new sources and increased availability. This being of benefit to them economically and for their own national security. One needs only to cite Europe’s dependence on Russia for natural gas to prove that point. As for new uses, for example, cruise ships running on natural gas was only in someone’s dreams until LNG came along. It is for these reasons that gas needs to be a prominent contributor to our energy supply as we transition to a new energy future.
Biofuels: Biofuels are typically included in the portfolio of renewables because the fuel is the result of biological processes and sources such as crops, feedstock, and algae can be readily replenished. I choose not to wade into the biofuel renewables debate, but rather to separate biofuels into its own category primarily because of the extensive use of ethanol for transportation purposes (gasohol). Of course, we all know that the ethanol in gasohol is largely derived from corn. Ethanol producers have done a great job of convincing government and political leaders that their product has advantages over pure gasoline including environmental benefits. The industry has managed to build a huge infrastructure, partially with government subsidies, and efforts continue to increase its use. Gasohol blends up to 15% for general use are now widely available and with certain engine modifications blends can go as high as 85% ethanol.
Full disclosure, I am not a fan of using ethanol as a fuel. Ethanol has a lower heat content than pure gasoline (i.e., lower gas mileage) and the processes for growing the crops and producing the ethanol require lots of energy (much of it derived from fossil fuels), thereby substantially reducing, if not eliminating, any purported environmental benefit. I also do not find it good common sense to use sources of food for this purpose. Food should be used to feed animals and people! Sure, some will argue that we can’t eat all the food we produce. Well, how about we try to get the excess food to places in our country, and maybe the world, where it is desperately needed. How about sending corn instead of money to countries struggling to feed their millions as part of our foreign aid programs? One thing for sure is the corn won’t end up in some corrupt leader’s bank account.
In all practicality, except for trying to feed the hungry, I find reducing the current use of ethanol to be a fight that NewEnergy2040 does not need to wage. In the long-term if electric or some other fuel source is used to power our vehicles, gasohol may likely go the way of the dinosaur and be phased out.
Nuclear: US nuclear power production at its peak satisfied approximately 20% of our electrical energy demand. This percentage is dropping slowly as plants have reached the end of their licensed lives. Some have renewed their licenses allowing for additional years of operation, but as the renewed licenses expire the contributions of nuclear power to our energy mix will decline even further unless new plants are built. In the early part of this century there was some optimism in the nuclear community that a nuclear renaissance was underway. A few nuclear consortiums were formed to build new-generation nuclear facilities and when one or two facilities received construction and operating licenses (COL) from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the optimism grew. Good stuff!!
But wait, one or two approvals does not make a renaissance and there are many huge hurdles ahead to revitalize the nuclear infrastructure. First-generation nuclear designers, managers, and operators have largely faded from the scene and there is a limited second generation in the pipeline. Nuclear suppliers, and in particular heavy industry suppliers, have largely disappeared in this country and a huge effort will be required to revive them. Skilled trades and workers with the specialized skills required on nuclear construction sites are no longer plentiful, to say the least, and need replenishment. Construction quality standards and the regulatory environment remain extremely onerous and difficult to navigate. Lastly, but certainly not least, the industry has somehow forgotten how to build a power plant in a cost effective and timely manner.
Of course, then there is the constant drone from the anti-nuclear folks about safety and their seemingly unrealistic expectation of zero-risk nuclear power. Currently, nuclear generating facilities in this country are the safest they’ve ever been and new-generation facilities (those that would be built today) are even safer with new inherent safety features and the benefit of lessons learned from over fifty years of nuclear power operating experience. Yes, there are risks with nuclear power, but there also is no such thing as zero-risk. There have been serious accidents in the industry and in all likelihood some measure of overreaction to the Three Mile Island accident significantly contributed to the industry’s premature decline in the US. The Chernobyl accident of course was an absolute catastrophe, but should not be included in the same conversation because of the massive corruption, and beyond irresponsible, acts of an evil Soviet government. We can never completely inoculate ourselves from despicable behavior by rogue governments, but it is also wrong to condemn nuclear power in our country because of it.
I would also be remiss if I did not reflect on the accident at Fukushima! I often think that biblical is an overused characterization of many natural disasters, but in this case I don’t think so. Actually, I think biblical is the right characterization for the combination of a 9.0 earthquake followed almost immediately by a 50 foot wall of water. As someone who started his career at a plant of the very same design and vintage as Fukushima, I too, was stunned by the devastation. But it is unreasonable to think that any facility, even a nuclear power plant, can be designed to fully withstand such events. With that said, I believe the Fukushima devastation could have been significantly reduced with design improvements such as flood protection for the diesel generators and a means to better manage the hydrogen that accumulated in the reactor buildings. Unfortunately it appears that Fukushima design updates may have lagged behind some of the international best practices and standards that could have potentially mitigated the damage. As is always the case, the industry learns from these disasters so the silver lining is further enhancements to safety in the US, and I think the world, because of globalization of nuclear power technologies.
Those against nuclear power are not only irrational in their resistance to it, but they also refuse to acknowledge that nuclear is one of the few energy sources today that produces almost no greenhouse gases. This is the electrical power production brass ring, but nuclear power is never afforded the credit it deserves for this significant advantage. In selecting NewEnergy2040 technologies, commensurate weight needs to be given to the environmental benefits offered by respective energy sources.
As I have stated earlier, in the interest of best technologies and smaller (and simpler) power plants, I note that the concept of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) is picking up steam (no pun intended) in the industry. SMRs go to the heart of some of the concerns I have had with earlier generation nuclear power. These designs are smaller making them simpler and easier to site; they are modular making them much easier to construct; the modules are built in a factory environment resulting in lower cost and better and more consistent quality; and they incorporate many inherent safety features. The SMR movement in nuclear power very much meets the NewEnergy2040 objective of implementing improved technologies and I believe could be endorsed with much enthusiasm.
Renewables: Renewables are typically defined as a portfolio of generation sources including hydropower, geothermal, biomass, wind and solar. Unfortunately hydropower will likely not play a major role in the NewEnergy2040 initiative because further development in the US will undoubtedly be met with strong opposition. Geothermal is limited in its potential sites, is currently a small component of our energy mix, and without huge investments will not realistically fulfill a significant portion of our future energy needs. Biomass has its own set of disadvantages, not the least of which is that it is not particularly friendly to the environment. That leaves wind and solar (biofuels were discussed earlier).
Why not wind and solar for all of America’s electrical power needs? Look around! Even now with wind and solar combined accounting for less than 10% of our electricity production, when passing through the Columbia River Gorge, the mountains around Palm Springs, or even the cornfields of Iowa one encounters areas of endless wind turbines littering the landscape. And I do mean littering. In my mind they tarnish our beautiful land and ironically many of them are not turning. Solar panels on rooftops may be an okay idea, but solar generating facilities, not so much. Cover the deserts, and maybe even that golf course in Palm Springs, with solar panels? Really?!
Then too, wind and solar are very decentralized means of producing electricity. Imagine all the underground wires comprising the spider web-like collector systems at each wind facility and the many miles of overhead lines required to connect the facilities to the grid. The associated environmental impacts of this expansive infrastructure never seem to get much attention. Another issue, albeit obvious, is that wind turbines don’t produce when the wind doesn’t blow and solar doesn’t produce when the sun isn’t shining. Ever wonder where your power comes from when these facilities are not producing? Of course, from fossil fueled and nuclear power plants! Wind and solar facilities do not preclude the need for extensive backup power facilities.
Proponents of wind and solar will point to, for example, improving battery technologies and innovative ways of managing the grid to “smooth out” the variability in power output from these sources. These are valid points, but these innovations also have strong negatives such as environmental, cost and land use issues. Another huge negative has to do with the raw materials that are required to produce wind turbines, solar panels, or batteries. These technologies require extensive quantities of minerals such as lithium, silver, nickel and rare earth elements. These raw materials in a broad sense are not particularly plentiful and much of what is available is required for many other purposes, not the least of which are electronic devices. This is a pretty ugly scenario! Imagine telling your 10-year old that his X-Box has been preempted by a battery or solar panel. Then too, at least right now, most raw earth elements for example come from China. Great! Let’s be even more dependent upon a country that is clearly in competition with us, and in the worst case, our arch-enemy.
While I find wind and solar facilities to be objectionable from aesthetic, land use, raw material availability, reliability, and infrastructure points of view there are other relevant questions. Will renewables ever be cost effective for generation of electricity? Is this the best place to spend some indeterminate trillions of dollars to try to meet our long-term energy needs? I’m inclined to believe neither of these questions have a favorable answer. To spend incomprehensible sums of money to achieve a partial solution (and realistically that’s the best renewables can offer), while likely increasing our energy costs substantially in the process, would highly stress or maybe even destroy our economy. Common sense, no way!
Wind and solar may show promise for uses such as home heating, charging home or building-based batteries, or powering remote devices; but not power generation. I have great difficulty envisioning a year 2050 where the majority of our electricity comes from renewables when I believe much better options are within our grasp. I repeat; an energy policy where a large portion of our electricity comes from renewables is insanity!