| Part I will deal primarily with energy. Shalista's comment on how the Brits burn coal and have a terrific transportation system brings me to the point where I'm going to consolidate a lot of long term thoughts into a unified set of threads; starting with this one. When finished, my "climate vs. energy" picture should make sense (and part II will be a stunner.) The distribution of energy resources had everything to do with the Western World history we're all familiar with. The Spanish Empire was pre-industrial; we can ignore that. The French (Napoleonic) Empire was at the very beginning of the industrial age; we'll ignore that one too. Let's just deal with the 20th Century. Only four nations had abundant coal reserves; the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia. The U.S. and Russia were isolationist, Great Britain ruled the world, and Germany was in the process of heavy industrialization. Only two nations had oil; the United States and Russia The only way a European nation could get oil was to import it or to develop it themselves in the Middle East (which is why Germany wanted North Africa in WWII.) France, with no oil and limited coal, had to import energy supplies to maximize industrialization. So when Germany took control of the Atlantic, France's goose was cooked even had it not been invaded by hi-tech German machinery. History reflects perfectly the availability of energy. So where are we today? Some may be surprised to know Europe is not really covered with nuclear power plants; that distinction applies only to France and Finland who've gone full-tilt nuclear. In order of dominance, European power generation comes from the following: oil (37%), gas (25%), coal (18%), nuclear (14%), and renewables (7%). Europe's population can be divided as such: Grand total, 730M; European Union, 400+M. Top three: Euro-Russia, 90M; Germany, 80M, France, 65M. The European people are divided on their nuclear views just as we are here in the U.S. Power in the U.S. is generated by three primary sources. In order, they are: coal (45%), gas (23%), and nuclear (20%). The rest is hydro (7%), renewables (4%), and oil (1%). Whoa! Did you notice that? Oil for electrical power generation is 37% in Europe...but only 1% in the U.S.! With Europe's highly advanced transportation systems (and smaller landmass) they can tolerate the cost of oil (cleaner burning than coal) for electricity, while we can't. Being we don't burn oil to make electricity; just what DO we use oil for? Of course, transportation. 2/3 the oil used in the U.S. goes for transportation! (The remainder for industry.) What can we do? Europe could reduce oil usage by increasing either coal or nuclear. The U.S. doesn't even burn oil for power in the first place....we have zero flexibility with oil! The bottom line - rationally: Power Generation: As noted above, the U.S. is in an inflexible position. We're certainly not going to start burning oil for power generation so we have three options to meet future demand; coal, gas, and nuclear. Renewable energy sounds great, but let's be real, it won't do the trick (especially with our obsolete energy grid.) My choice? It's a tough call... Nuclear: My feelings toward nuclear are neutral; keep it in the mix but don't rely too much on it. Oil: Not in the game. Renewables: Helpful but a minor player for the foreseeable future. Gas: Definitely a solid part of the mix; but this is the back-up quarterback. Drill for more oil; get more gas. Fine. But knock off the fracking. Coal: This is our star player. It is our cheapest and most plentiful energy source; use it. (But for God's sake - start rebuilding the power grid NOW. It's pointless to have a low-efficiency power grid and burn mountains of coal.) Black Swan events? None likely; pitfalls are well established. No one can shut off our coal supply. White Swan events? Fusion power and or superconductor technology breakthroughs. Transportation: The availability and cost of oil from hereon is going to be a big problem. There is only one short-term fix; drill for more oil, period. That Europeans pay six or seven dollars a gallon for gasoline may sound bad on the surface but when put in context, it's not a big deal. They live in cities instead of sprawling suburbs, and they have modern rail all over the place. Instead of driving around in gas guzzlers many of them walk, ride bikes, and take trains. Of course they have cars, but the working class doesn't rely on them like we do . Generally, it's those with higher incomes who drive the gas guzzlers; and being most the cost of gasoline there is tax - it helps fund their free health care and free college education. Raise the price of gasoline here to six or seven dollars and we'd have a stroke! How would Johnny be able to afford driving his two-ton pickup to school or to his ho-hum job? How would Dick and Jane be able to afford their obscene mortgage and two or three cars in the driveway? And to make matters worse, there's the cost of trucking everything around this huge nation (food costs could stagger the working class and poor.) Face it; we need to drill; politically correct or not. Black Swan events? The Middle East becomes unwilling or unable to export oil. Russian/European economic animosity. Natural disasters. War. White Swan events? Automotive engineering breakthroughs. Well folks, I've spent hours on this post (researching numbers, editing, thinking....) and I'm at the point where I'm about to lose track of what I'm doing; so I'll sign off now. More on the climate aspect of things with a follow-up thread. Tim NC |