America's Energy Future (Part Two): Practical Suggestions for Energy Transition

As stated in my previous article, America must make a more concerted effort to transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources.  Yet, in my opinion, even the president's twenty-five year transition timeline is too slow.  So, what are we to do?  There are no easy solutions, and all options currently available to us, short of massive government intervention, will have limited effect on the long term problem unless we all begin to change the way we consume energy.  Nonetheless, we can begin to make steps in the right direction if we care to do so, and if each of us does our part.  So, what are we to do?

First, we can begin to transition virtually all local, state and federal vehicles entirely to non-fossil fuel technology.  Most local government vehicles need not travel long distances in a day; for most government agencies, we could transition at least the autos to all-electric cars like the Nissan Leaf.  According to U.S. Census statistics, in 2007 there were nearly 4.2 million registered vehicles owned and operated by federal, state and local governments and other public institutions, not counting military vehicles or motorcycles.  Replacing over four million gas powered cars, vans, trucks and busses with electric and hybrid vehicles may only account for less than 2% of all vehicles on the road today, but it would be a start.  Of course, while most government cars would be transitioned to electric, those vehicles needed for long distance travel or unable to be replaced by all-electric technology could be replaced gas hybrid vehicles. 

Transitioning to non-fossil-fuel-based government vehicles will take time.  Government budgets will need significant adjustments almost immediately.  An aggressive ten year replacement plan is theoretically achievable, but even a twelve to fifteen year plan might work.  Within ten to fifteen years most government vehicles would be entirely electric, and none of the remaining would be based entirely upon fossil fuel technology.   Still, transitioning 1.5% of all cars, trucks, vans and busses to non-fossil fuel technology would reduce total fossil fuel consumption in the U.S. by less than 1%, and significantly less than that if we don't transition the U.S. electricity grid off coal as quickly as possible.  The solutions are not easy.

Second, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in America by far.  In fact, according to one source, the U.S. military consumes about 450,000 barrels of oil per day, about as much as the entire country of Greece.   But this isn't saying much, since Greece is #32 in the list of countries consuming the most fossil fuels today.  In fact, when compared to the total U.S. consumption of fossil fuel, the American military accounts for only 2% of U.S. fossil fuel consumption.  While this is still a huge number, this includes large military deployments in the midst of two foreign wars.  Moreover, in spite of the extensive global engagement of the U.S. military today, Department of Defense officials have begun to deliberately reduce dependency upon fossil fuels as of mid- to late-2010 (New York Times, October 4, 2010).  U.S. Navy Secretary , Ray Mabus, stated that the Navy has a ten-year plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by 50%.  Other military departments have similar goals.  While we need to do more, this is a good start. 

The biggest obstacle facing America is privately owned gas & diesel burning vehicles, which account for most of the fossil fuel consumption in the U.S.  The second largest problem is electricity usage by our homes, office buildings, cities, etc., most of which is powered by fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).  If we are going to make progress in reducing our fossil fuel usage, Americans will have to take two bold steps.  Millions of us are going to have to switch to electric and hybrid cars, trucks and vans.  Hybrids will not be enough.  Many of us are going to have to switch to electric cars, especially for local transportation needs.  Certainly, this will put a drain on our electric utility grid, initially increasing our use of coal-based technology.  But if our government and utility companies make a serious effort to increase our usage of so-called 'clean energy' technology (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear), we might be able to offset our initial increase in coal usage as more and more of us drive electric cars. 

Why do I think this is a feasible move?  Already America has made significant progress without much coordinated national effort.  For instance, since 2005 America's dependence upon fossil fuels has declined 8.4% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.pdf).  This is due in part because in the past five years America's dependence upon renewable energy sources has increased nearly 21%, and the rate at which we are transitioning toward 'clean energy' is increasing.  According to the Energy Information Administration, 8% of all U.S. energy consumption in 2009 came from renewable energy sources (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_ consump /rea_prereport.html).

While this is a significant improvement over the last decade, only 10% of our renewable energy comes from solar and wind, meaning less than one percent of our total energy consumption today comes from wind and solar technologies.  Hydro-electric and bio-fuel technologies still account for the bulk of America's renewable energy usage.  We will have to invest more in clean energy methods quickly if we are going to avoid the severe fossil fuel shortage predicted in my previous article.  I'm not suggesting that our federal government has to shoulder most of the burden for this shift.  But our utility companies at the very least must establish ambitious plans to transition to a much larger dependence on renewable energy sources, and this must occur relatively quickly over the next ten to twenty years.

All of these solutions together will not solve the fossil fuel problem.  Reducing our energy usage as well as coordinated energy conservation will help, too.  But taking these steps over a ten to twenty year period might make a big difference over the long run.  How long will such moves put off the coming 'dark ages' I mentioned in my last article?  Who knows?  But if we do not make a concerted effort as Americans, we may find ourselves in the dark sooner than we think.

 

               David Adcock, Managing Editor