Realists, idealists clash over energy

American President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are realists, which is why fossil fuels are a cornerstone of their newly formulated energy policy. Given the nation’s ravenous appetite for oil, gas and power, the U.S. cannot simply conserve or ration its way out of a growing energy crisis, Cheney told a Toronto audience. Nor, he added, is America ready to stake its economy and way of life on renewables.

Most environmentalists are idealists, which is why they denounced the Bush administration’s energy policy as “war on the environment,” or as quid pro quo for oil company contributions. And these are the mainstream mutterings; the radicals have far nastier things to say about America’s “Pollution President” (a.k.a. “the Toxic Texan”) and his oil-patch posse of global warmers and Kyoto Accord killers.

Politicians are opportunists, which is why Canadian ministers urged Americans to adopt a “balanced approach” involving conservation and renewables, even as they urged Canadians to seize “opportunities” for more power and oil-and-gas sales to keep-it-greenies south of the border. And given the challenges of cooling a warming climate and warming a cooling economy, some politicians were probably relieved that Bush had banged the last nail into the Kyoto Protocol coffin.

Citizens are ambivalent and preoccupied with making a living, which is why they either fume or sigh as they fill up their cars with expensive gasoline before heading to work on tires made of petroleum, over roads paved with asphalt. They value a clean environment but know it isn’t easy being green in today’s fast-paced Oil Age. Even those who talk the talk ain’t walking the walk. The average North American drives 1,000 miles a month, 12,000 miles a year, and the distance to the moon every 20 years. Even the average potato travels 750 miles to market.

The battle over energy, therefore, is between those who see the world as it is and those who see it as they wish it to be. On the reality front, Bush and Cheney are right about the importance of fossil fuels. They provide most of the world’s energy; they allow a few farmers to feed millions of people; they are the lifeblood of transportation, tourism and manufacturing, and the feedstock for plastics, medicines, pesticides, clothing, paint and thousands of other products. And thanks to fossil fuels, we are no longer hunting whales for light, or decimating forests just to cook dinner and stay warm.

Environmentalists argue that oil companies are “cooking the planet” and “exploiting” poor nations in the process. End all new oil exploration, they say, because the world “already has nearly 50 years of proven reserves — a meaningful horizon for a transition to renewable energy resources.” Phase out “dirty coal” and “polluting oil” and replace them with solar and wind power, or with fuel cells, or, as the new anti-capitalist battle cry goes, “with something nice.” They want this conversion to take place rapidly and on a massive scale so that developing nations do not follow the West’s “wasteful and noxious pattern” of industrialization.

However, energy problems have been going on long enough for the public to realize that wind and solar power can’t meet existing needs, let alone future ones. Covering vast expanses of land with solar collectors or wind turbines to produce meagre amounts of power is no solution at all. Most people realize this, but, at the same time, they fear nuclear power, dismiss coal as “dirty,” and refuse to build new hydro-electric dams. What then?

Environmentalists are pinning their hopes on fuel cells, which are touted as quiet, efficient and clean. “Fuel cells usually run on pure hydrogen gas, which can be produced cleanly from solar power, as well as other renewable energy sources,” states a sampling of promotional literature. “Fuel cells running on hydrogen produce no pollution; the only byproduct is pure water. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient, while internal combustion engines are only 12% to 15% efficient. And, since there are no moving parts, fuel cells can be very reliable and make almost no noise.”

It sounds so wonderful, and so easy, that some American politicians have urged the Bush administration to focus on fuel cells and forget about drilling for more oil, and building more power plants and gas pipelines. But the reality is that fuel cells can’t yet power cars — let alone houses, cities and countries — on a cost-efficient basis. While there is a multi-billion-dollar effort to make hydrogen the fuel source of choice for transport, even that is in its infancy, despite the 150 years that have passed since fuel cells were invented.

The problems lie first in how to make, and then store, the fuel. The supply side sounds simple, hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe. Unfortunately, it rarely exists in its free state and is normally found combined with oxygen (as water), or with carbon (as methane and other hydrocarbons). But no matter what the feedstock, it always takes energy to free hydrogen for use, and therein lies the price rub.

The fuel cells under development today don’t use hydrogen fuel directly but, rather, “interim fuels,” such as methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and even gasoline or diesel fuel, with the hydrogen extracted on-board using a reformer. While the vast majority of hydrogen sold today is made from natural gas, environmentalists say their ultimate goal is to have it produced from renewable energy sources (such as solar, wind or biomass). Unfortunately, renewables aren’t yet up to the low-cost, mass-production challenge.

Storing hydrogen is another headache. It’s light, and its tiny atoms can wriggle through material used to contain it. One company has designed a tank to hold pressurized hydrogen, while others are examining storage in some solid form. Safety is a major concern, as hydrogen is explosive and memories of the Hindenburg disaster still resonate with a wary public.

The cost of providing hydrogen fuel stations is daunting too. To give some idea, it would cost an estimated US$1.2 billion to service 400,000 fuel-cell cars in California, including US$100 million for central hydrogen reforming and liquefaction.

Delegates attending this year’s meeting of the national Hydrogen Association were told that costs must come down a lot more if hydrogen energy systems are to make it in the marketplace. A review of research over eight years showed that many projects had failed to live up to their initial promise. There were breakthroughs in production and storage techniques, but, as it stands, experts don’t expect the Hydrogen Age to come anytime soon. Even so, fuel cells warrant more research dollars and government support. No energy possibility should be left unexplored, given the expected growth in the world’s population in the years ahead. After all, inexpensive fossil fuels are finite and cannot meet infinite needs indefinitely.

Present realities can’t be ignored either, including the abundance and cheapness of coal, which makes it the main energy source (by default) of many developing nations. In some major cities, the skies are barely visible in winter because of inefficient, polluting coal plants. Existing clean-coal technology could vastly improve the global environment while still providing cheap energy to millions, which seems a better solution than waiting around — perhaps indefinitely — for “something nice” that only the rich can afford.