The Crisis of Leadership
September 20, 2009 by Steve Meyer
Filed under Commentary, Green Energy, Industry
I would like to take a slight detour from the generally technical and economic posts. The underlying issue to many of the challenges that we face in energy and technology has to do with how we make decisions as individuals, companies and as a culture.
I submit that the current “energy crisis” is largely self inflicted. Electric power utilities have not been permitted to build new capacity for 30 years. Any surprise that we have shortages? Most of the commentary has to do with environmental studies that prevent the permits to be authorized.
Gasoline prices? The same thing. We have all the oil and gas we need, we just can’t get permission from the regulatory agencies to go after it. And refineries are in the same situation. The management of the oil and gas companies decided years ago that it would be cheaper to simply bring gasoline over from the Middle East instead of making it here. Fine. But that strategy can only be used temporarily, as we have found out. Except now we can’t build any new capacity.
Nuclear energy has advanced substantially in the form of pebble bed reactors which are thermally stable even when the coolant is shut off and cannot go critical mass because the nuclear material is insulated in ceramic. Wave reactors are being demonstrated whose cores make the nuclear fuel inert, no disposal problem. But we’ve spent decades making atomic energy “unacceptable”. So there it would seem unlikely that we’ll see and solutions without a major shift in the political system.
So who’s fault it is anyway? I don’t know. There’s enough blame to go around.
Is there any scenario where decision making doesn’t turn into a political process? In a democracy, a group of people can vote on something, be in agreement and be factually incorrect. If we all vote that there is no gravity, does it make any difference? It doesn’t matter how much factual information is presented, if the group controlling the decision making process chooses to ignore it.
Similarly the automobile industry has chosen for many years not to make high mileage cars. This has been going on for years and Americans have had enough. It can be part of a decision making process that has been corrupted or a conscious decision to ignore the market information that exists.
So the mis-management of major corporations can follow a similar path. If senior management chooses to ignore market data, or use it’s authority for personal gain, you can get some very ugly results. Like Enrom amd others. Is this a failure of Capitalism as the Michael Moore types would have us believe. I don’t think so.
It’s a failure of human beings. It’s an ethical failure in some cases. And it’s also a failure of the decision making processes. So many times we get caught in eliminating choices that we fail to apply the most important premise; that a solution has to be found. We have to have more electricity, for example, so let’s explore a bunch of options and what their impact will be. And let’s try to make the best decision that insures that the goal of increased electricity at the best cost.
This changes the outcome so that goals can be met instead of paralyzing us with inaction that stalls our economy and short changes everyone.
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
All the oil? Can you show some numbers. I did this last year using the National Petroleum Institute, an oil industry organization, of the amount of oil actually under US territory and found that at current consumption levels and using no imported oil the oil under US control would last 5 years.
However, I do agree that organizations like the Sierra Club have not considered the real cost of not developing our own resources. Dependence on foreign sources has significant, if not more negative, environmental impact due to the costs of “protecting” our foreign interests and their complete lack of regard, perhaps mostly in the past now, for the environment.
Personally, I see all central power systems, given current and future radicalism as possessing severe milliatry strategic vulnerabilities, because taking out one plant, especially a nuclear plant would imact hundreds of thousands, if not millions in an instant. IMHO, decentralized, local power production at the source of need is the best proteciton against radical targets. I.e. it is far easier to take out one power plant covering a few acres than millions of homes generating the same power over thousands, if not millions of acreas. JMHO
Here’s a surprisingly simple solution to reducing energy costs and increasing available energy supply: Direct night-time outdoor lighting down, and avoid wasting light that spills up into the sky.
Light pollution wastes an estimated 2 million barrels of oil every day. And the best part is, it’s an easily reversible problem: Install full-cut off lighting, or shield present lighting. Most often, a lower wattage bulb can be utlized that, in conjunction with the shield fixture, places MORE light where it’s needed: On the ground/down. Light trespass is avoided (ever have a light blaring into your bedroom at night, and had to install a shade or curtains to block it? That’s light trespass!), glare is eliminated (the AMA agrees that glare is a problem, especially for older drivers), and energy costs are reduced.
And crucially, security is actually improved, because strong shadows are eliminated due to overly bright outdoor, night-time lighting. This allows law enforcement to see better due to lower contrast levels.
It’s a win-win for everyone. Lower energy costs, saved resources, better lighting where it’s needed, improved security, safer driving conditions, increases sales of GOOD lighting equipment and suppliers, and everyone gets the beauty of the night sky back.
The biggest problem is lack of awareness. For more info, see darksky.org. That’s a group that isn’t against outdoor lighting, they’re against BAD outdoor lighting. We can all make a difference in this area, just by aiming outdoor lights down, and not letting wasted light go up above the horizontal.
That doesn’t even really require leadership – it just requires us to pay attention and DO something, instead of waiting for someone else to do it for us.
Your commentary presumes that “We have to have more electricity”, concluding that our energy problem is entirely a supply problem, and not a demand problem. How do we know that we are producing too little energy, and not that we are consuming too much? Perhaps it is some of both. But it is misleading to imply that increasing production is the first and only action required. Reducing consumption is much cheaper per KWH than generating new power, and ought to get the lions share of our attention and funding.
Michael
Thanks for your comment. I agree with your premise. But reducing consumption isn’t required unless there is insufficient supply. Power shortages that cause rolling brownouts around the country in the summer when AC use is high suggests a serious problem. Shutting down semiconductor plants in California is not a sign of stable supply. So, I think this kind of information suggests a need for increased supply.
Can we save enough electricity in the short term to get there? I don’t know. It seems like there have been substantial gains in major appliances, but it takes years to replace the old units. There is certainly not sufficient cost benefit to cause people to run out and replace appliances just to save money. LED lighting is on the horizon and I think it will do much more to save power than compact flourescent, but the same issue, it takes time to impact the system and the initial investment is significant. My guess is the kind of conservation that is needed is going to be extreme. And at the rate the DOE spends money, $9Bil last year, I don’t know if it’s actually cheaper. I think I’d rather spend $9Bil on adding new power plants.
Dave
Thanks for your comment. I agree. I recently read that the lighting that is used is often high pressure sodium. Very bright and no “dimming” features. These lights were sold years ago when energy was cheap. Maybe a cost analysis would show that newer options would save the municipality money and improve night time conditions.
Please be cautious when applying the oil equivalency. While it is possible to calculate an electrical power equivalent to a barrel of oil, there is no actual reduction to the oil purchased by the US because almost none of it is used for power generation. So saving electricity doesn’t actually reduce oil consumption.
Jim
thanks for your comments. I wasn’t thinking about land reserves although the Alaska field is supposed to be huge and we already have a pipeline nearby to transport the oil. There was a report of a huge find in Nebraska and the old Permian Basin in Texas which was thought to be tapped out was recently re-surveyed and found to have substantial reserves. On top of this the BP find in the Gulf of Mexico and many other offshore fields suggest that the rising cost of gasoline is not a result of availability.
Your point is very well taken with regard to the military implications. And on another level, why would we want to buy oil from countries that are funding terrorism? We are funding the aggressors. It would be much safer for the security of the United States to be energy independent. This is a discussion we don’t hear much about from our political leaders. And it seems pretty obvious.
On the subject of decentralizing power supply, I agree with you. The difficulty is that the cost of solar remains very high. The business is not self supporting and so we have subsidies to help the industry grow to the point of being cost effective. There is a lot of activity to improve performance and this will eventually get us there. My company is developing a low cost tracking system that will improve energy harvest in flat roof and residential applications by 30%, so that’s a pretty big step.