'Energy brokers' block shift to non-polluting electricity

Spectrum, by Michael Kircher

Gov. Frank Murkowski, when he was in the Senate, commissioned a study by the U.S. Department of Energy to determine the amount of imported oil that would be reduced by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The results suggested that by 2020, the U.S. would be importing 62 percent of its oil. If production is permitted in ANWR, the percentage drops to 60.

Let's assume that we find enough oil in new fields in the U.S. to supply us for the next 10,000 years. We would still be a hydrocarbon-based society. That means a significant increase in global warming, disease, smog and allergies associated with its consumption.

How do we reduce our use of hydrocarbon fuels to the point where we can assure the survival of our descendants? A little history lesson is in order.

Electrical production by means of the photovoltaic process was demonstrated in 1839 by Edmund Becquerel, a French experimental physicist. In 1955, a commercial photovoltaic cell sold for about $1,500 a watt. During the space program in the sixties it was about $500 a watt. Now, in 2004, photovoltaic panels are available for less than $5 a watt. With mass production and use, the price would drop again.

Let's assume it takes as long as 100 years to move completely to a sun generated, i.e. renewable energy based society. If we had started in the late 1800s, we could have celebrated the new millennium in the year 2001 as having achieved that goal. Every human being would now have access to low-cost, non-polluting electricity, and thus, a higher standard of living. Pure water, health clinics, widespread small-scale agriculture and access to education would be available to all.

Let's look at our energy consumption from another angle.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the University of California, and the Department of Energy produced an energy flow chart which is reproduced in the February/March 2002 issue of Home Power Magazine. This chart shows the production and consumption graphically of all energy sources used in the United States.

Of all the energy used, 55 percent is wasted or "rejected." These losses are the result of transportation of fuels and losses through the electrical system.

Therefore, if we aggressively conserve energy and move more in the direction of a "distributed" energy system, which eliminates transportation losses and reduces system losses, we can reduce our total need for energy significantly.

Then why hasn't the U.S. government adopted a policy of encouraging conservation? Because energy brokers lose money if people conserve. Companies like ENRON have made billions by purchasing power from suppliers and reselling it at a massive profit to users, often with disastrous results, such as we see in California.

We can reduce our energy use by 20 percent with no change in lifestyle. We can reduce it another 20 percent with only minor inconveniences. But that's kind of tough to do when the vice-president meets secretly with oil company executives to craft energy policy, and then states that conservation will not be a part of that policy.

Politicians respond that renewable energy isn't cost effective. There are two points here: Number one, every form of energy production is heavily subsidized by your tax dollars. Let's eliminate all subsidies and incentives for oil and gas production, coal and nuclear, and then see how renewable systems stack up.

The second point is that of payback. One of the questions I'm asked when I talk about these systems is, "How economical is it?" When I ask what they mean by economical, they refer to the concept of payback. Payback is the amount of time that a purchase will pay for itself in use. For example, a painter may buy a new sprayer so he can paint faster. In doing so he completes jobs faster and makes more money than if he didn't have the new sprayer. He can calculate how many hours he has to work to "pay back" or payoff, the sprayer.

This sounds like a reasonable question. But I can't resist asking in return what the payback is on other items. For example, what is the payback on a new car? In fact it depreciates by a thousand dollars when you drive it off the lot. What's the payback on a stereo system, new carpeting, flowers in the garden, chocolate chip ice cream? The fact is, almost nothing we buy has a monetary payback. We buy things because they give us pleasure or accomplish a purpose.

We need to have an answer when our children and grandchildren ask what we did to help keep the air, soil and water clean. Now is the time, perhaps the last time, for action. It's pretty simple, you either care about the future, or you don't.

Michael A. Kircher lives in Palmer