Our Energy Debate Can’t Run on Emotion : If We Want Alternatives, We Must Know Risks

Like all industrialized nations, America runs on energy. An adequate supply at a reasonable cost is essential if this nation is to maintain or improve its current standard of living.

But energy, every form of it, has its price. Some costs are readily apparent. One can calculate, based on the price of oil or coal, the cost per kilowatt of electricity generated. Other costs are more difficult to calculate. For example, the cost per kilowatt of electricity generated via nuclear energy (fission) reflects less the cost of uranium than the need to comply with complex and often expensive environmental safety regulations. In so far as these measures are reasonable, they present an unavoidable expenditure. However, regulations motivated by politics and/or emotion--rather than science--are an unnecessary expense. Finally, we need to consider some energy costs that are exceedingly difficult or impossible to estimate, such as the effect of these technologies on the environment.

The United States, Europe and Japan, with about 20% of the world’s population, consume 80% of the world’s energy. This disproportionate use of energy cannot continue into the next century. As other nations evolve, they too will require (and demand) their fair share of the world’s energy resources. What will happen then? One strategy could be for us to voluntarily decrease our energy consumption. This seems exceedingly unlikely. Americans continue to use more, not less, energy each year. Another possibility is a violent social upheaval whereby these nations seize their “fair-share” of the world’s energy resources. Clearly this is not in our best interest. The third alternative is to increase energy production. Few question that this strategy will prevail, but where will this energy come from?

Coal is abundant and cheap. However, coal mining is dangerous and its burning poses very substantial health hazards.

Oil, too, has many problems. It is a scarce resource and we depend heavily on foreign supplies. This reliance can have profound economic and political consequences. My greatest concerns, however, are the political costs of oil dependence. It did not require many hours of waiting in line during the 1973 oil crisis for many Americans to begin to question our support of Israel. And what about the nuclear risk of foreign oil dependence? It is possible to argue that the likelihood of a conflict escalating into a major nuclear exchange is greater if fought over the use of oil than over the use of nuclear energy.

Other forms of energy also must be considered, but some, such as hydroelectric or wind, are inadequate for global needs. Solar energy is a popular alternative. However, it is also currently inadequate, and present technologies result in a loss of lives and production of toxic wastes of comparable or greater magnitude as nuclear energy. Recent reports of a breakthrough in the cold fusion process of producing energy are of interest, but fusion is inherently more unstable than fission and practical applications are at best decades away.

What, then, should we think of nuclear energy? It, too, has substantial advantages and problems. It is potentially abundant. It could be cheap but isn’t, primarily because of errors made by the industry and by regulatory agencies. Nuclear energy also carries the risk of accidents, like Chernobyl, and disposal of radioactive wastes. These problems should be technically solvable but are too heavily politicized for serious progress.

This brings us to two recent issues. One is the defeat of a Los Angeles proposition by Occidental Petroleum to drill for oil in California; the second, the planned dismantling of the newly licensed Shoreham nuclear power station in New York. Americans must be willing to pay the price for energy. If we stop using nuclear energy, we must accept the risks of oil exploration or changes in the environment of the planet that may result from burning fossil fuels. We must understand that simply voting against every energy proposal will not result in a sensible energy strategy.

Many people were surprised when George Bush, during the second presidential campaign debate, mentioned that he thought safe nuclear energy might have a role in the nation’s energy future. However, this seems to me a reasonable attitude. In contrast, I do not agree with recent decisions regarding the Shoreham reactor or the Seabrook nuclear facility in New Hampshire. These decisions seem to have been motivated more by political considerations or naivete than by a scholarly assessment of the potential risks. For example, while it is probably true that Long Island or Boston could not be rapidly evacuated, it is also clear that no possible accident scenario would make such an evacuation desirable. Also, consider that at Chernobyl, for which the Soviets were totally unprepared, evacuation of the local town of 45,000 persons was accomplished in four hours, once the decision was made.

It’s time to get serious about energy. The United States has drifted for too long without a cogent, long-term energy policy. I am not necessarily suggesting people support offshore oil drilling (a crazy stance just after the Exxon Valdez fiasco) or more nuclear power plants. But they should think carefully about the alternatives. If the Bush Administration is to be successful in developing a comprehensive energy policy that will serve the United States into the next century, it will need the support of an informed, rational electorate.

Although crudites and sushi are popular today, I doubt Americans will be happy with less energy.