Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
1
No president since Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s has advanced a coherent national energy policy
(USDOE 1979; Executive Office of the President 1977), and Congress failed to approve most
of his proposals. What should our national energy policy be? This topic provides an analytical
framework for answering this important and timely question. With energy prices higher now than
in the 1970s, and with the nuclear industry vigorously promoting nuclear electric generation as
a panacea for global climate change, even in the absence of a viable technology for permanent
high-level radioactive waste management, this seems like an auspicious time for a new look at
energy policy analysis. Historically there have been three approaches evident in the development
of proposals for national energy policy in the United States: supply expansion, demand suppres-
sion, and cost analysis.
Proponents of supply expansion have focused on energy conversion and distribution for the an-
swers to the energy problem. This approach is based on the observation that there is no physical
shortage of energy in the world. It advances the proposition that there is more energy in the world
than we could ever possibly use, so the problem is not really a shortage, but barriers between us
and the use of various energy sources.
Identification of these barriers usually has centered on one or more of the following: technical,
geographical, economic, political, or environmental barriers to energy resource conversion and
distribution.
Technical Barriers
Engineering feasibility of a technology defines technical barriers to use of various sources of energy.
For example, we have created thermonuclear weapons based on nuclear fusion processes, but have
as yet been unable to engineer adequate control over such processes and sustain them for sufficient
periods of time to make fusion useful for generating electricity. Such technology might provide
very substantial energy supplies and has been researched for some time, at considerable expense,
but holds little promise for utilization in the foreseeable future due to technical difficulties. Expen-
diture of funds by government for continued basic research will be necessary to overcome these
technical barriers, as there is no near-term prospect of profits from commercialization of fusion
technology to encourage such investments by the private sector. Overcoming technical barriers
may require large investments that ultimately increase the market price of some technologies if and
when they become commercially available. Also, the lack of a proven technology for permanent
management of high-level radioactive waste has not prevented increased use of nuclear fission
to generate electricity, and such waste continues to accumulate in temporary storage. Apparently
conversion and distribution are more sensitive to technical barriers than is waste management in
the nuclear fuel cycle.
3
