Long after promised, but what's a deadline to a blogger? I'd like to say that I've been away so long because of the extra research I've been doing, but, well, that wouldn't be true. I've acquired new information about possible solutions, but my solution has remained more or less the same since I started doing this series (lo, these many months ago).
First, though, a quick review. In
part I, I talked about how efficiency is often merely a matter of masking costs, and that evaluating energy sources requires consideration of all costs associated with that source (and, by extension, how nuclear fission is a pretty costly energy source); in
part II, I talked about how hydrogen fuel cells represent an energy sink, energy therefrom ultimately being less than that required to put into it; in
part III, I talked about how ethanol was similarly an energy sink, and also a threat to our food supply; and in
part IV, I copped out and referred y'all to
another source for discussions of the various energy alternatives out there.
What I would like to see in the U.S. over the rest of the century is the elimination of coal-fired and nuclear fission power plants, and their replacement with renewable forms that are applicable to the area: wind turbines in windy areas, solar panels in sunny areas, geothermal and deep geothermal in appropriate areas, wave turbines on the coasts, and probably natural gas in those areas where it was still most cost-effective. I would expect that the load on centralized power plants would decrease as more energy production was decentralized to businesses and homes: whether it's photovoltaic cells on roofs, neighborhood wind farms, or agricultural companies processing waste on site to produce combustible fuels. Transportation should be resolved through the use of batteries in land vehicles, synthetic liquid fuels in aviation and commercial shipping, and probably nuclear fission in naval vessels (the military has to be able to do things that are not cost-effective for the economy or society as a whole). Such would naturally lead to a decrease in carbon dioxide (and toxic byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion), as well as less demand on petroleum, natural sources of which I expect shall be depleted by the end of the century. Battery-powered cars and trucks would also cut back on noise, which is something of which I've become more and more conscious in my advancing age. Natural sources of petroleum are likely to be exhausted by the end of the century, so most "gas" will have to be synthetically produced anyway (and probably most used in military land vehicles), and plastics would be produced almost entirely synthetically, without a petroleum base, directly from other hydrocarbons. In short, I would expect to see as many alternative energy sources as possible, specifically tailored to smaller markets and the conditions in them.
My solution, however, has less to do with the energy alternatives than with government policy about energy, and for that I refer to part I. Government subsidizes various energy sources in large or small ways, distorting the economy and masking inefficiencies, so the first part would be to get government at all levels out of energy. The only exceptions to this would be possibly taking over the electrical infrastructure, and military/civilian government procurement and research. Another part to this solution, of course, would be to develop clearer rules for suing polluters for property and personal damage, which introduces a level of complexity I'm not ready to address here. So let's stick to removing tax breaks, direct grants, liability limitations and other government expenditures on all energy sources, perhaps gradually, but finally and quickly.
The immediate effect of this, of course, would be higher energy prices. One argument about subsidies in the first place (tax breaks, especially) is that they offset the cost of adhering to government regulation, but regulations regarding emissions and safety (for employees and surrounding property) represent a cost of the energy source, and should not be masked by offsets in the tax code. Similarly, there are some things that are too dangerous to do, and one way to reflect that is the cost of making the activity meet a certain level of safety. Another reflection is the cost of liability insurance, which provides the best mechanism for estimating the likelihood and severity of a bad outcome from an activity, so limiting the liability of coal or nuclear power plants at best lulls the public into a false sense of security, and more likely imposes hidden cost (through taxes or what-not) and an even greater cost in the future. Of course, all subsidies means tax breaks to individuals for buying fuel efficient cars and making energy efficient changes to their homes, but I'm not convinced that these tax breaks every initiated any such purchasing decisions, so their elimination is unlikely to make much difference.
But in that increase in prices would be included all the costs of an energy source, making it possible for energy utilities to make better-informed decisions about where to purchase power, as well as giving the consumer a better idea of the actual savings from making a given change to his home or vehicle. My expectation is that per watt-hour cost of nuclear, coal, and possibly natural gas would start to approach that of solar and wind, and make deep geothermal and wave turbines and such competitive -- but I could be wrong. There are so many estimates out there on the real or imagined cost of this or that energy source, which consider or ignore different factors, that it would be difficult to really assess the costs right now -- see, for example,
this article. What is certain, however, is that fossil fuels shall become more costly, due to supply (v. demand) and the need to mitigate the environmental costs of their combustion. The advantage of getting government out of the business of picking winners in the energy market is that those winners shall emerge all by themselves, by being the least expensive and harmful (which, again, should equate to the same thing).
The costs would fall most heavily, of course, on those financially unable to make costly changes to their homes. This could be mitigated by offering such costly improvement (rooftop PV cells, for example) on a payment plan, rather than all at once -- or even leasing the equipment where possible. That's the problem for contractors and service providers, to make their product more viable in the market, rather than the state (which, by extension, is you and I). The energy needs of the poor could also be alleviated through charitable programs (like
this one, to which I contribute annually) at the municipal and county levels. I recognize that economically strapped communities would make fewer contributions to such programs, but that's the way it is: an individual (or an energy utility, or a public or private corporation) can judge more accurately whether he can afford a given expenditure than a federal legislator.
I mentioned the energy infrastructure, and I have to concede that federal, or joint federal-state, action shall be necessary to repair, maintain, and modernize it. I think it is analogous to the interstate highway system, which required a massive investment to build, and continues to require maintenance. Perhaps the federal government should impose a kilowatt-hour tax, applying it (as gas taxes are for interstate highways) to research and implementation of broad-level improvements and repairs, and funding specific projects as grants to states. This would not be for energy production, but energy transmission: the towers and wires, or buried cable, or whatever infrastructure required to get energy from producers to consumers. There's still the potential for a
bridge to nowhere, or a
bridge that collapses due to unwise allocation at the state level, but this seems a legitimate ("necessary and proper") role for the federal government, and it would take the pressure (and expense) off the energy producers/providers and transfer it to the economy as a whole.
The economy has its own mechanisms for assessing cost and risk (such as bank loans and insurance policies) that are more fluid and adaptable (and arguably more accurate) than the inertial and arbitrary decisions of law makers. Individuals can also buy or rennovate products to mitigate cost to themselves or improve quality. But none of these mechanisms or individual judgements work if the costs for energy are spread and hidden. Our nation's energy crisis shall not be resolved through governmental action, which shall continue to pick winners based on political priorities rather than energy and financial priorities, but through the separate decisions of all Americans -- acting with appropriate information in hand.
