Schlesinger: No Energy Security in Sight

March 13, 2008 RSS Feed Print

James Schlesinger, who was the nation's first secretary of energy, had a grim analysis of the nation's current energy predicament this morning at an energy summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Schlesinger, now a senior adviser to Lehman Brothers and chairman of the nonprofit engineering organization Mitre, predicted that energy prices would continue to rise and declared that the United States would never see energy independence as long as it depended on the internal combustion engine. Excerpts from his remarks:

We regularly hear that we must ensure that energy supplies are abundant, affordable and secure—an aspiration devoutly to be wished [quoting Hamlet]. These criteria or shibboleths—to be exact—are not likely to be achieved. We are not going to have energy security. What we are trying to do is fashion a set of policies that limit or mitigate energy insecurity. And we have done fairly well in that regard, most notably with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

On the question of affordability—remember, the price of energy will continue to rise, and what the public expects, and what political leaders may promise with regard to affordability, will not transpire.... [Energy] will be available at whatever price clears the market.

The energy independence that in the 1970s was talked about by three presidents—coal was at the root of it. Coal was America's ace in the hole. America was the Saudi Arabia of coal. For reasons I need not dwell on, we know now that coal, as the main route to improving energy security, is open to continued question.... Do not chase the will o' the wisp of energy independence.

We are not going to reach energy independence as long as the U.S. depends on the internal combustion engine.

Schlesinger said that he would not get into the question of "peak oil"—whether oil is running out—and added that those who believed it was were ignoring the impact of technological improvements motivated by higher prices. "Some of the arguments about peak oil are theological," he said. However, he went on to sound much like a peak oiler—pointing out that most of the world's oil came from super fields discovered decades ago that were now in decline. Also, he noted the National Petroleum Council's observation that conventional oil production would plateau because of the geopolitical limitations on access to oil.

"But whatever the reason, bear in mind we face a painful transition to the future in which we hit a limitation or a plateau on the ability to produce crude oil, and we might begin to effectively make adjustment now rather than later," he said. If the world continues on its current path of oil use, we must find and develop the equivalent of nine more Saudi Arabias, Schlesinger said, adding, "I think the probability of being that successful is very low."

Schlesinger had one note of optimism: "The solution is technology. We are giving a big helping hand to technology by getting the price of oil up to $110. That has stirred a lot of entrepreneurial juices—indeed, entrepreneurial juices in Silicon Valley. Google has promised to devote its efforts to renewable resources by making them economic. A Cambridge, Mass., firm [A123 Systems] has promised developments on lithium ion batteries. Cellulosic ethanol will come, and [the] beauty of it is it will overcome what I shall delicately refer to as the defects of ethanol production from corn."

Tags:
energy,
energy policy and climate change

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I believe we haven't seen high prices yet....when most Americans switch their old vehicles and start using more and more hybrids and super fuel efficient cars the big oil companies will need to make up their losses. Although more environmentally friendly these new vehicles will induce the oil companies to make up their losses by increasing gas prices to astronomical heights. Don't be surprised if a gallon of gas will be in the double digits in the very near future. We need to make the change to new enery forms real soon. Americans need to impower themselves again. We need to stop using foreign oil and change our energy source. Although evironmentally friendly, superfuel efficient vehicles in the long run will not be the answer to saving money at the pump --- actually it will get worse. Perhaps regulation is the answer.

Rhonda Moran of NY 9:22AM April 20, 2008

Those who simply 'relax', as one commentator here suggested, about the potential for oil supply inadequacies based on the inevitable successful development of electric cars has really not thought the concept through.

Where does the electricity come from in the first place? It varies between countries and regions of course but the answer is mostly coal then oil and natural gas - all fossil fuels. So the problem is not solved through the use of electric vehicles; it just shifts the consumption of fossil fuels to power plants which then make electricity which must get dispersed along the power grid, resulting in very significant energy loss, and then finally making it into your future electric car.

Any significant move away from combustion engines toward electric cars would require immediate large scale construction of new power plants that take fossil fuels to build and are powered by fossil fuels. See the problem? Also note that the power grid in the U.S. and many other areas is old and very much in need of huge upgrading just to continue with current power levels.

The answer to peak oil, even a protracted plateau if we are so lucky, is anything but simple. The answer is not to just relax - as a society we've been doing that in regards to energy for far too long. We need to properly analyze our entire energy production and delivery system and start building solutions right now.

Dave A 2:46PM March 18, 2008

Heaven help us, once again we are told that "the solution is technology". Changing behaviors and adopting resource-thrifty lifestyles remain verbotten topics of conversation in the mainstream. It is insane.

Consider recreation and amusement. If we-the-people were the least bit serious about fighting our addiction to oil (and climate change too, for that matter), we would stop playing on gasoline-powered toys TOMORROW. We "need" snowmobiles, motorboats, ATVs, motorcycles, riding lawn mowers, etc. like we need a hole in the head. Human beings have managed perfectly well for thousands of years to have fun without such unsustainable extravagences.

And recreation is just one example of COMPLETELY discretionary opportunities to cut oil consumption. There's Green Exercise, Fossil-Fuel-Free Garden & Yard Care, Zero-Impact Worship, Human-Powered School Transportation, Carbon-Neutral Birthday Parties, etc.

But jawboning about technofixes means nobody has to feel bad about his/her lifestyle or lift a finger to change. We've become such spoiled, gluttonous, entitlement-obsessive brats that Reality may have to smack us aside the head with a 2x4 before we wake up and begin to act like responsible adults.

Hans Noeldner of WI 11:48PM March 17, 2008

Beyond the Barrel

Marianne Lavelle, senior writer, seeks out the path to an energy future that doesn’t wreck the planet or put you in the poorhouse.

advertisement