The jump in crude oil prices during the prior decade interrupted the relatively sanguine energy landscape we experienced during much of the 1980s and 1990s, sparking a renewed interest in everything from energy efficiency in automobiles, homes and appliances to boosting production of alternative forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biofuels, etc.
The steep drop in gasoline prices and falling utility bills during the recession seemed to lessen the need for a comprehensive energy policy, as the focus in Washington shifted to other concerns.
But as the BP crisis in the Gulf of Mexico took center stage last summer, advocates of alternative energy were quick to point out the dangers of offshore drilling and the nation’s dependence on oil, and didn’t miss a beat as they asked for a renewed focus on wind and solar energy.
Further, the dramatic rise in violence in the Middle East and the spike in gasoline prices in recent weeks has highlighted how susceptible we are to an oil shock.
Therefore, the latest crisis is likely to bring forth renewed calls to quickly exploit alternative energy technologies.
But before we get to oil and alternative energy, a quick breakdown of U.S. energy sources is in order.
The chart above highlights U.S. energy consumption in 2009. The vast majority of coal and natural gas originated domestically, but oil is a different matter, as the U.S. imported about 51% of its petroleum (crude oil and refined petroleum products) in 2009, according to data supplied by the Energy Information Administration(EIA).
It’s this 51% the country must aim to reduce.
Increased domestic exploration and production of crude will help but won’t eliminate the need for imports. The same holds true for natural gas and conservation. Enter solar and wind.
But the question we must ask (and one that’s rarely heard):
“How will a greater reliance on alternatives, specifically solar and wind, actually reduce the country’s dependence on unstable Middle Eastern crude?”
First, let’s look at the latest data available provided by the EIA, which offers us a breakdown of U.S. imports:
Country 2010 U.S. imports (000s barrels per day)
| Canada | 2,532 |
| Mexico | 1,280 |
| Saudi Arabia | 1,094 |
| Nigeria | 1,025 |
| Venezuela | 987 |
| Russia | 611 |
| Algeria | 507 |
| Iraq | 414 |
| Angola | 390 |
| Columbia | 365 |
| Brazil | 271 |
| United Kingdom | 256 |
| Virgin Islands | 255 |
| Ecuador | 197 |
| Kuwait | 197 |
Total 10.3 million barrels per day
As the chart above shows, the U.S. receives over one-third of its oil from Canada and Mexico. Oil from the Middle East, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Algeria, is not an important part of the portfolio.
Still, several of the countries on the list are not necessarily rock-solid sources of crude.
Consequently, reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil – a laudable goal – would enhance both the economic and national security of the U.S.
Consequently, reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil – a laudable goal – would enhance both the economic and national security of the U.S.
Back to the original question
How can alternatives play a significant role in reducing oil imports?
The chart below highlights the breakdown in U.S. electricity production, with coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables (including wood, hydroelectric, biofuels, geothermal, solar, wind – see first chart) all playing a part.
However, oil accounts for just 1% of electricity generation.
How can alternatives play a significant role in reducing oil imports?
The chart below highlights the breakdown in U.S. electricity production, with coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables (including wood, hydroelectric, biofuels, geothermal, solar, wind – see first chart) all playing a part.
However, oil accounts for just 1% of electricity generation.
(Source: U.S. energy Information Administration, December 16, 2010)
Let me repeat that and let it sink in. Oil accounts for just 1% of all the electricity generated in the U.S.!
Simply put a vast increase in wind and solar power would do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And calls in some corners that boosting wind and solar power would do just that do not line up with the facts.
It would, however, replace stable, domestic sources of energy such as coal and natural gas.
It can be argued that there are environmental reasons why we may want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and exploring ways to cut the cost of wind and solar power so that it might become more competitive with coal and natural gas has merits.
Let me repeat that and let it sink in. Oil accounts for just 1% of all the electricity generated in the U.S.!
Simply put a vast increase in wind and solar power would do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And calls in some corners that boosting wind and solar power would do just that do not line up with the facts.
It would, however, replace stable, domestic sources of energy such as coal and natural gas.
It can be argued that there are environmental reasons why we may want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and exploring ways to cut the cost of wind and solar power so that it might become more competitive with coal and natural gas has merits.
Still, others may point to highways that might one day support a plethora of electric cars powered by wind and solar power.
According to the latest issue of a leading consumer magazine, the Chevy Volt ran nearly $50,000, which includes a $5,000 dealer markup (not included is a $7,500 tax credit).
But expect a range of just 35 miles according to the EPA, and tests by the leading consumer magazine during the winter came up even short of 35 miles, running between 23 to 28 miles. Apparently, cold weather zaps the length of the battery’s charge.
The current cost of electric vehicles are just too high and the batteries are not yet capable of anything near what’s needed to bring about mass acceptance.
Consequently, as the data show, significant increases in wind and solar power will do little to break our dependence on foreign sources of crude.
0 comments:
Post a Comment