backgrounder Energy and Security
As the nation assesses its
vulnerability to a range of outside threats, Congress and the
administration are considering steps to develop a more secure energy
future.
Problem: Dependence on
Oil
US dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil,
carries significant economic and political risks. We import 10
million barrels of oil and petroleum products each day-more than
half our daily needs. To do so, we send roughly $200,000 each minute
overseas to buy oil, contributing significantly to the US trade
deficit. Furthermore, the nations dominating the world oil market
are located in historically unstable regions of the world, creating
complex and delicate relationships for US foreign policy.
False Security:
Domestic Drilling
One proposed solution is to increase
domestic oil supply. But domestic drilling and refining will have a
negligible effect on the world oil market. Even if we opened the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling today, the first drop of
oil would not reach US markets for 7 to 12 years. At its peak,
Arctic Refuge production would yield only enough oil to meet the
needs of US transportation for 9 days.
A Better Solution: Fuel
Economy
Two-thirds of the oil used in the United States
goes for transportation. Passenger vehicles alone account for 40
percent of oil use, partly because the fuel economy of new cars and
trucks is at a two-decade low.
Fortunately, off-the-shelf
technologies can affordably and safely boost fuel economy by nearly
75 percent. By 2012, the average new vehicle could be getting 40
miles per gallon. In just 10 years, fuel economy could save more oil
than all of the oil we'd ever be able to pump from the Arctic
Refuge.
Moreover, because
fuel-efficient cars cost less at the pump, the average driver will
save more than $2,000 over the lifetime of the car. Burning less
fuel also means relief from refinery pollution and reduced global
warming emissions.
Industry and homes are
also significant oil consumers. By 2020, energy efficiency
improvements in industries and homes could save 25 percent more oil
than is econo-mically recoverable from the Arctic Refuge over 60
years.
Problem: A Vulnerable
Power Infrastructure Much of the US energy system presents
significant safety and security risks. Facilities recently put on
heightened security alert include nuclear power plants, hydropower
dams, pipelines, refineries, tankers, and the electricity
transmission grid. The risks are obvious: A major accident at a
nuclear plant could kill tens of thousands and contaminate an area
the size of Pennsylvania. Reactor containments were not built to
withstand the impact of a commercial jet. Rupturing the hold of a
tanker containing liquefied natural gas could send flames over
several miles.
False Security: More of
the Same Clearly we cannot change our energy system
overnight, so in the near term we must find ways of improving
security at such facilities. But we can avoid adding to the problem.
The administration's National Energy Policy and a recent House
energy bill would add 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants (at the 300
megawatt size), including new nuclear plants. In addition, they call
for 301,000 miles of new gas transmission and distribution pipelines
and 7,000 miles of new electricity transmission lines.
Better Solutions: Efficiency and
Renewable Generation The quickest, least expensive solution
is to ramp up energy efficiency. Higher appliance standards,
stricter building codes, and tax incentives could rapidly shrink the
amount of electricity we need.
Renewable energy would go
even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the
electricity system. Wind farms and solar arrays carry none of the
vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and
geographically dispersed, making them difficult to target. Moreover,
they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted or volatile fuel
stocks that can burn.
Expanding energy
efficiency and increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of the
total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent
compared to business as usual projections. We would eliminate the
need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as
avoiding many miles of new gas pipelines and power lines. We could
retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and
reduce coal generation by 60 percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500
megawatts each.
Consumers and the
environment would also gain. Net consumer savings would total nearly
$105 billion per year by 2020, $350 per year for the typical family.
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would decrease by
two-thirds compared to business as usual. Emissions of sulfur
dioxide, which causes acid rain, and of nitrogen oxides, which
contribute to smog, would both drop by 55 percent.
True Energy
Security A strong policy to improve US energy security must
pursue reducing demand: for oil, for gas, for electricity. The
technologies to do so are at hand. The steps are clear:
- Raise the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that govern automobile fuel
efficiency
- Strengthen energy
efficiency standards for appliances, buildings, and industry; and
increase funding for state and utility efficiency
programs
- Adopt a renewable
portfolio standard requiring 20 percent renewables nationwide by
2020
Our nation can achieve
greatly improved energy security if we add the political
will. |