204
little consequence. Had France been dependent on natural gas to generate electricity, a fracking ban would probably not have been possible.
The type of energy used at any particular point in human history was controlled
by the level of available technology and the economics. Wood fires were used
through much of history, although peat or dung might be substituted if wood was
not economical. Coal replaced wood because of its greater heat capacity and availability. Oil and natural gas replaced coal with their higher efficiencies and easier
mobility. Nuclear power became the ultimate energy technology in the twentieth
century. New energy technology in the twenty-first century will have to be both
climate-neutral and sustainable. It may include advanced nuclear systems, solar
power satellites, solar-augmented or enhanced geothermal energy, and nuclear fusion.
Electricity was a breakthrough technology in the late nineteenth century that supplied power via a system of generators, wires and transformers. Electricity doesn’t
create energy, but merely changes it into a form that can be distributed and utilized
cleanly and easily. Although there are some efficiency losses along the way, the
beauty of electricity is that it can use a wide variety of primary energy sources to
supply the original power. These can vary from wind to solar, coal, natural gas,
hydropower, nuclear, and others. Any new and sustainable primary energy sources
on the horizon will probably continue to use the existing electrical system to distribute energy.
The economics of each new technology were typically superior to whatever was
used previously. This doesn’t refer just to the cost of the energy source itself, but to
the efficiencies gained by utilizing that new energy source. For example, a steam
ship fueled by coal could move more freight faster, farther, and more reliably than a
sailing ship. Likewise, a ship fueled by bunker oil could go greater distances than a
coal-powered ship, and required a much smaller crew because bunker oil was
pumped rather than shoveled like coal. A nuclear powered ship can go around the
world multiple times without refueling. When advocates of sustainable energy push
for the adoption of new energy sources, an understanding of the economic gains is
a critical part of a convincing argument.
Past efforts in energy innovation, at least in government-sponsored research,
were largely focused on improvements in the technology. Economics were considered only secondarily, as a goal for breakthrough technologies to provide new
energy sources that were cost-competitive with existing sources. This turned out to
be a mistake.
Without an economic component, most of these so-called technological breakthroughs turned out to be dismal failures. For example, no matter how much chemical engineering technology was applied to improve the efficiency of the
German-developed Fischer-Tropsch process for coal gasification and liquids (refer
back to Fig. 4.2), the resulting synfuel products were never able to beat or even
match the price of conventional oil and natural gas. Likewise, the development of
many abundant but economically-marginal hydrocarbon resources, like the Green
River oil shale, the “tar sands” in Alberta and Kentucky, and methane hydrates in the
deep ocean have never really succeeded because they are almost universally unable
to either meet the “break even” point where the revenue from sales would match the
11 Balancing Energy, Environment, and Economics
little consequence. Had France been dependent on natural gas to generate electricity, a fracking ban would probably not have been possible.
The type of energy used at any particular point in human history was controlled
by the level of available technology and the economics. Wood fires were used
through much of history, although peat or dung might be substituted if wood was
not economical. Coal replaced wood because of its greater heat capacity and availability. Oil and natural gas replaced coal with their higher efficiencies and easier
mobility. Nuclear power became the ultimate energy technology in the twentieth
century. New energy technology in the twenty-first century will have to be both
climate-neutral and sustainable. It may include advanced nuclear systems, solar
power satellites, solar-augmented or enhanced geothermal energy, and nuclear fusion.
Electricity was a breakthrough technology in the late nineteenth century that supplied power via a system of generators, wires and transformers. Electricity doesn’t
create energy, but merely changes it into a form that can be distributed and utilized
cleanly and easily. Although there are some efficiency losses along the way, the
beauty of electricity is that it can use a wide variety of primary energy sources to
supply the original power. These can vary from wind to solar, coal, natural gas,
hydropower, nuclear, and others. Any new and sustainable primary energy sources
on the horizon will probably continue to use the existing electrical system to distribute energy.
The economics of each new technology were typically superior to whatever was
used previously. This doesn’t refer just to the cost of the energy source itself, but to
the efficiencies gained by utilizing that new energy source. For example, a steam
ship fueled by coal could move more freight faster, farther, and more reliably than a
sailing ship. Likewise, a ship fueled by bunker oil could go greater distances than a
coal-powered ship, and required a much smaller crew because bunker oil was
pumped rather than shoveled like coal. A nuclear powered ship can go around the
world multiple times without refueling. When advocates of sustainable energy push
for the adoption of new energy sources, an understanding of the economic gains is
a critical part of a convincing argument.
Past efforts in energy innovation, at least in government-sponsored research,
were largely focused on improvements in the technology. Economics were considered only secondarily, as a goal for breakthrough technologies to provide new
energy sources that were cost-competitive with existing sources. This turned out to
be a mistake.
Without an economic component, most of these so-called technological breakthroughs turned out to be dismal failures. For example, no matter how much chemical engineering technology was applied to improve the efficiency of the
German-developed Fischer-Tropsch process for coal gasification and liquids (refer
back to Fig. 4.2), the resulting synfuel products were never able to beat or even
match the price of conventional oil and natural gas. Likewise, the development of
many abundant but economically-marginal hydrocarbon resources, like the Green
River oil shale, the “tar sands” in Alberta and Kentucky, and methane hydrates in the
deep ocean have never really succeeded because they are almost universally unable
to either meet the “break even” point where the revenue from sales would match the
11 Balancing Energy, Environment, and Economics