THE NYTIMES SOUNDS WORRIED—
TOM FRIEDMAN, NO LESS:
" it’s not just Europe. This energy crunch could pinch ceramics, steel, aluminum, glass and cement suppliers in China, the story added, while it presents households in Brazil with eye-popping power bills because low river water flows have slashed hydropower output. And pandemic-related supply chain problems for coal are making the problem worse.
But how did the bad-news side of this story emerge so fast?
Blame Covid-19. First, the pandemic erupted and signaled to every major economy that we were headed for a deep recession. This sent prices of all kinds of commodities, including oil and gas, into downward spirals.
This, in turn, led banks to choke off investment in new natural gas capacity and crude wells after seven years of already declining investments in these hydrocarbons because of lousy returns.But the economy snapped back — thanks to government stimulus programs — far faster than anticipated. And so, too, did demand for energy. But this industry does not ramp up quickly. So, there was not enough natural gas, let alone renewables, to fill in the gap.
America has enough oil and natural gas to meet its own needs for now, but its ability to export liquefied natural gas to help others is limited, especially when every utility in Europe and Asia is trying to meet newly minted environmental, social and governance standards for clean energy and therefore is desperate to import natural gas.
When every country jumps in at once, the price goes crazy. Or the lights go out.
Don’t get me wrong. I am as green as ever. But I’m not a nice green. I am a mean green. Achieving the scale of clean energy that we need requires not only wind, solar and hydro, but also a carbon tax in every major industrial economy, nuclear power and natural gas as a bridge. If you oppose all those, you’re not serious about what scientists tell us needs to be done right now — put in place enough non-carbon-emitting fuels to manage the destructive aspects of climate change that have become unavoidable, so we can avoid those that would be unmanageable.
Sadly, in an overreaction to the Fukushima nuclear accident, Germany decided in 2011 to phase out all of its nuclear power by 2022 — nuclear power stations that in the year 2000 generated 29.5 percent of Germany’s power generation mix. All of that has to be replaced by wind, solar, hydro and natural gas, and there is just not enough now.
As Bill Gates points out in his smart book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” the only way to reach our climate targets is to shift production of all the big heavy industries, like steel, cement and automobiles, as well as how we heat our homes and power our cars, to electricity generated from clean energy. Safe and affordable nuclear power has to be part of our mix because, Gates argues, “it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day.”
THIS IS ALL EERILY FAMILIAR:
Annual review of energy. Volume 4
Abstract
An overview of the CONAES study is presented a long with reviews of several major energy supply resources and technologies, including the global uranium resource, the North Sea oil field, U.S. coal production, photochemical conversion of solar energy, and the interfacing of solar wind systems with electric grids. Topics related to energy economics and econometrics include three assessments of energy supply-demand models and projections, and a discussion of issues in the design of utility rate structures. Energy end-use is represented by a review of possible impacts of telecommunications on energy consumption. International policy-related reviews cover energy situation of Canada and the question of international assurance of nuclear fuel supply
- Publication:
- Palo Alto, Calif., Annual Reviews, Inc., 1979. 567 p (For individual items see A80-11827 to A80-11832)
Ann. Rev. Energy. 1979. 4:1-70
UNITED STATES ENERGY ALTERNATIVES TO 2010 AND BEYOND:
The Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems Study [CONAES ]
Harvey Brooks
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Jack M Hollander
University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
INTRODUCTION
This paper reviews the results of a study performed by the US National Academies of Sciences and Engineering in response to a request from the US Energy Research and Development Administration in 1975 for a com prehensive analysis of the nation's energy future, with special consideration of the role of nuclear power. ..
the parent Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES), (1), four assessment panels, and some two dozen subcommittees, involving, in total, over 250 persons. The Committee and study groups were selected from a broadly based representation in order to bring to bear a wide range of expertise and viewpoints on the major US energy issues.
Central to the study's charter was assessment of current and future options for the nation's energy supply system.
