|
Perspectives on Reclaiming Abandoned Appalachian Surface Coal Mines
by
Robert H. Giles, Jr., Ph. D. , Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences
and
Burd S. McGinnes, Ph. D. , Leader, the
Virginia Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
October 1981
Preparation of this publication was partially supported by the Penn Virginia Resources Corporation, Duffield, Virginia. Its publication was stopped in 1981 for budgetary reasons and it was discovered in files in December, 2007. Giles had retired from the university in 1998 and McGinnes died in 2005. Giles edited it slightly (about 45 pages) and placed it herein (partially to memorialize the work over many years of his friend, Dr. McGinnes) for historical and baseline comparison purposes. The authors thought the paper could have helped in being one way in which the objectives of that Corporation could be achieved. Those were stated as "to improve the development and reclamation of coal-mined lands throughout the region in which it is located." Giles thought that studies within the region (later called The Powell River Project ) resulted in a new understanding of the problems of the region as well as a variety of findings in planning, research, and development. The Corporation's intent has been that the outcome of these products, where appropriate, be used for the good of all the people and resources of the region.
The substance and findings of the work reported herein are dedicated to the public, particularly the people of the mid-Eastern U.S. coal region. Permission to reprint or use this material is readily given upon receipt of a written request to Giles at www.RuralSystem.com. The paper presents the authors' views which do not necessarily reflect the views of the Penn Virginia Resources Corporation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or the US. Department of the Interior.
This document was developed also as part of a project entitled Reclamation Needs of Abandoned Eastern Surface Mines at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Contract No. 14-16-0008-1183). The document may in no way reflect the concepts or policy of VPI and SU its faculty, the Department of the Interior, or its employees.
The authors have relied upon the work of and are deeply grateful to their project colleagues, namely Gerald Cross, Robert Downing, Eugene Maughan, Garland Pardue, Robert Raleigh, and Alan Tipton, (Faculty); Ned Okie (Programmer); and David Chapman, William Flick, Donald Francis, Catherine Hamm, John Haufler, Maurice LeFranc, William Matter, Larry Peltz, and Edmund Saunders (Graduate Fellows).
PREFACE
| TABLE OF CONTENTS Link to desired section
|
We believe that the conclusions remain sound and form an essential rationale for designing computer-based systems for improved land use and reclamation toward productive uses.
INTRODUCTION
We have been studying strip mine reclamation for several years. In this research effort we felt an unusual presence. Whatever it was, we knew it was not mere uncertainty, or the spiteful things that seemed to have lurked among our previous research efforts. We did not know of the existence of this extra dimension at first; later we became aware of it; now we think we know enough to describe what we know about it.
We prefer to discuss our understanding informally, for we are not describing a thing of taxonomic purity. Some will suspect we ascribe metaphysical characteristics to the phenomenon, others will critically claim we are describing subjective phenomena and are thus ascientific. We agree with both of the above, suspecting there are no sure fences between them. However, we do believe that what we describe is real, investigatable, and worthy of future discussion and study.
What is this thing? We have no name for it; to name anything is to capture only a part of its reality, to diminish it. In efforts to simplify everything to a word or phrase we deprive ourselves of richness -- and usually make our subsequent decisions wrong. We see the world as being very, very complex and it seems increasingly unwise to try to treat it as if it were simple.
 |
| Fig. 1. Schematic interrelations among components of the context within which mine reclamation is conducted. |
PERSPECTIVES
When dealing with multi-dimensional, interactive systems, there is no correct place to begin an analysis. All parts are essential; importance is a very temporary judgement. The Appalachian surface mine reclamation is such a system. The most difficult concept to understand, though it is stated easily, is that within the system there are vast interactions. Ecology is the science devoted to the study of interactions of plants and animals with each other and their environment. Ecology is a word that th rough usage, has assumed broad connotations. However, it still retains major emphases on interaction and environment. In a broad sense, we are attempting to take ecological perspectives, for as it has been simply put, "everything in the Universe is hitched to every thins else."
In this essay we have attempted to observe the Appalachian coal mining reclamation problem from several vantage points and levels. To take a multidimensional view of anything, using only the human eye, is impossible (A person can never see all sides of a lump of coal at once). However, in the mind's eye, aided by the computer, such multi-dimensionality is possible. By interactions we do not mean cause-and-effect but looping effects or feedbacks which when too many "results" occur, the "cause" is turned off (as in physiological systems). For example, when a mountain is bulldozed, erosion results. We know that such cause-effect results are not all well known, but that they can be readily fathomed. We also use interaction to express reaching a point at which a system no longer behaves in a normal or regular way, but changes its behavior (as when soil nutrients become toxic when certain pH levels are reached). By interactions we mean synergistic, catalytic, and potentiating effects as well as antagonistic effects.
Even though we have asserted that simple cause-and-effect can be discovered and understood, we are very aware of counter-intuitive phenomenon (Forrester 1969). These are occurences that economists earlier called perverse. They are the difficulties that arise when sincere, well-intentioned people attempt to modify a system. Frequently, when efforts are made to correct the errors, the corrective action seems to make the situation worse. The real source of the problem may be hidden; there may be interactive effects in operation. Whatever the cause, only full understanding of the system, both of its structure and processes, is necessary to prevent the counter-intuitive phenomenon from occurring, and to manage systems on the basis of understanding, not intuition. Multi-dimensional viewing is basic to understanding complex problems.
What does perspective have to do with soil pH or with a prescription for reclaiming a particular surface mine? We now believe that the extra-site factors have at least as much, if not more, to do with solutions to reclaiming mined land as do on-site factors. We now believe that an improper perspective or incomplete appreciation of multiple perspectives will cause greater failures in surface mine reclamation work than inadequate information about wildlife, plants, hydrology, or the cost of earth movement. We shall describe what we see from four important vantage points.
World Energy Resources and Policies
It is our intent to sketch major aspects of our perception of the world energy situation which we think are relevant to coal mine reclamation. While we are aware of the existence of major computer systems designed to analyze energy supplies, we fear that world leaders do not fully utilize the power of the computer to deal with important interactions within the energy supply-demand system. Such interactions seem to be largely the result of many cause-effect events in a large and complex system, some with their own feedback loops, which are not readily seen or understood because of the intricacy of the system. When the system produces results counter to a person's best analysis of the system, the results are said to be counter- intuitive. Our studies have led us to believe that the Appalachian coal surface mine reclamation problem is extremely complex and that the discovery of future counterintuitive effects is not only highly probable but that such discoveries will be more frequent than in the past. This suspicion creates an environment of great uncertainty. More than uncertainty, it is a condition of risk.
Every decision, particularly those for allocating money, manpower, or time, is potentially hazardous or costly. This is not a startling observation to students of energy, but seems to be to the general public (and partially explains the ponderousness of political workings on energy policy). To the scientist working in applied areas, it is particularly meaningful, for it can shape experimental design, suggest appropriate levels of confidence for conclusions from such experiments, and indicate reasonable precision in measurement and acceptable limits of error. It is a simple but very important observation.
We wonder if we are being too negative or gloomy. Perhaps we overestimate risks; perhaps the counterintuitive is only a conceptual boogeyman. There are many reasons for our gloom and for the high estimates we attach to the current risks. These are as follows:
These are the major dimensions of our concern. They seem to us to justify assigning high risks to the well-being of people in the energy environment. They also justify what we view as an atypical managerial and scientific view. That is, for a person to manage a coal field or anyone aspect of the energy mix, he must perform just as an agricultural decision maker. Such decision makers are continually playing in a game of uncertainty. Rather than play against the weather, as the farmer must do, the energy manager's play is against the world energy market. There are thus no right solutions for the onthe-ground manager, only tactics and strategies to be played against a responsive, but insensitive opponent. The solutions to the energy problem do not, therefore, lie in scientific approaches and inductive processes, but in a system approach with a game theoretic mode and thus one highly dependent on deductive processes.
Basic Energetics
Energy is the fundamental currency. It has always been, and an awareness of this will increase.
Net energy budgeting is the concept that all goods and services have energy costs. All physical things are stored energy. They have cost energy, in some way, to produce them. To have machinery, labor or other things is to have energy. Not to have things or services is to have lacked energy or to have foregone it. Energy will come to be part of normal thought patterns. Bottles will be discussed not only in terms of litter or visual esthetics, but, more importantly the energy required to produce 1000 service-days. Wildlife will be discussed in terms of energy required to produce a recreational person-day. Table flatware sets will be evaluated in terms of the energy costs to produce an inheritable set for many generations. (The energy costs to produce a set of plastic of limited life may exceed those of a set of steel.) In the future, prices are likely to reflect better all energy costs than they do today.
Focusing attention on net energetics raises questions such as: How much energy do I get out for every unit expended? In modern agriculture, about ten calories are said to be spent for everyone calorie produced as food. In the coal mines, the question has been poorly studied: How are the kilocalories of energy obtained from a ton of coal related to the total kilocalories of the costs of obtaining that coal (exploration, labor, equipment, transportation, reclamation, mitigation)? These are fair questions when it's realized that
There are other fundamentals of energetics in addition to the first and second laws of thermodynamics which are intrinsic to the above comments. Energy cannot be created, it is limited. It cannot be destroyed either, but it is forever being lost or dispersed. Every time energy passes from one form to another (e.g., coal to metal, mouse to snake) great energy losses occur (there is high entropy). Re-use is an energy conserving practice; recycling is an energy expensive practice. Never can more work be done than there is energy available to do it.
There are other important concepts of energetics, one of which is Lotka's principle which is now operating on society. (It was formerly a biological concept.) Lotka's principle is that systems that can tap the most energy sources and that can maximize the flow of energy to do the most useful work, will survive and expand over other systems. The energy companies tap many sources and tend to maximize flow. The question of their survival rests on the fulcrum of usefulness. The challenges for wildlife species, corporations, government agencies, and university departments are for proper location in the three-dimensional space of Lotka's principle.
Another principle is that as systems, (like corporations, societies, agencies) gain power, they build structure and add specialists to tap better the available energy sources. Structures cost money (energy) to maintain and secure. There are limits beyond which all energy gathered goes into maintenance and security and none into production or creative endeavors. Because this process is so poorly appreciated (even though well known) "developed systems have an inherent tendency to grow beyond optimum size at the expense of natural systems" (Odum and Odum 1972).
Effective complex systems maximize energy returns on energy investments over the short run and diversify energy returns over the long run. We perceive national activity proceeding directly counter to this law of energetics. The prognosis is thus: an ineffective system will result.
Coal is concentrated energy. The more diffuse energy, the less able it is to do work. Sunlight is very diffuse. Plants concentrate it as do solar collectors. It costs energy to concentrate energy. An energetic awareness causes people to resist for achieving work. Such awareness explains, in part, why wind and solar energy technologies are not further developed and are of limited potential.
The Energy Resource
A resource can be analyzed using the characteristics shown in Fig. 2 (see Watt 1973:20). The energy sources now known are shown in Table 1. Most energy is derived from the sun, though some pathways by which this occurs are not self-evident.
 |
| Fig. 2. A generalized resource and its primary interactive characteristics (implied by double-headed arrows over unlimited surfaces). Availability is a function of time and space. Variety relates to variance within the resource (quality) as well as to availability of alternative or competitive resources (quality). |
| Table 1. Major energy options within the earth's energy system. All energy is of solar origin. Electricity is the primary means of transmission, although direct physical transportation of coal, coal slurry, wood chips, gas, oil, or hydrogen are alternatives. |
|
Resources are defined by people. Resources do not occur de novo. There is always coupled with a good or a service an element of perceived human utility. There may be "things" on the earth which will one day become non-resources because they have no further utility for man. These basic economic concepts are worth repeating for they are necessary to grasp the dynamic nature of energy resources. They are dynamic because of, for example, changes in
Wildlife is not a resource. It is merely a word pointing at a group of concepts and physical things. Wildlife points at a set of resources. There are multiple faunal resources, from insects to fish, with widely differing values ranging from negative (pest species) to infinitely large (endangered species). To speak of wildlife resources or their availability, for almost any reason, is to overgeneralize.
The same is true of coal. Coal is not one resource but many, with highly variable known reserves, chemical properties, energy contents, costs of extraction, locations, appropriate end uses, and prices. To speak merely of coal reserves, the life expectancy of coal, or the environmental impacts of coal usage is to overgeneralize. It is convenient to do so, often politically expedient, and may be efficient, but will not be effective over the long run. The problem facing the resource manager is how to use optimally a complex physical entity to satisfy a complex set of perceived human needs and desires.
The resource manager is also overgeneralized. Who that person is, is not at all clear. At one level, the manager is Everyperson -- the message of conservationists for centuries. At another level, he is society's agent and agency, employed to serve its best interests. The significance of this observation is that it indicates an institutional problem or, as some would say, a problem with the infrastructure. There is no one in charge. There is no central agency, no evident organization, no court, or identifiable official. There are sufficient reasons why this is the case. There is no national energy goal or goals, no explicit policy, no central agency. Energy permeates every aspect of life. It is the universal idiom.
No one can "leave energy to someone else." It is our view that the current situation, reflecting it having been left, will change slowly. A few points of change will become evident. It is at these points where decision power can be executed over the short run. They include: (1) use of fossil fuel resources on public lands, (2) interstate movement of energy (electricity or other forms of raw or processed materials), (3) siting of facilities involving any public funds (an energy system impact statement), (4) local planning boards, (5) the state legislatures, and (6) reclamation prescriptions for lands having undergone fossil fuel or geothermal extractions. At these points the resource manager can legitimately and effectively work.
The resource manager working with an energy source, such as coal, has a bewildering variety of tactical options available including dynamic reserve projections, use rates, conservation practices, use constraints, and, perhaps most important, substitutability. Because of the dynamic nature of the energy resource and this
 |
| Fig. 3. Shifts in any part of the inter-related energy system can result in shortages or surpluses in supply, which itself is interactive with demand. |
Energy Use
There is more written on energy than can now be read. We have read, but we understand poorly and risk overlooking the important paper or book. That is the environment of risk within which energy and coal researchers work. Nevertheless, the following is our current understanding of how energy (Table 2) is used and. represents part of the intellectual climate of our studies and explains some of our concerns.
Energy use in the U.S. is variously reported, but appears to be about 35 percent of world energy consumption divided approximately as follows: Transportation (25 percent), space heating in residential and commercial buildings (21 percent), industrial (29 percent), and electrical generation (25 percent). This comes from the sources shown in Table 2.
| Table 2. Percent of gross energy consumption in the U.S. by source and with projections after 1971 (Subcommittee on Energy 1973:44) | ||||||
| Source | 1971 | 1975 | 1980 | 1985 | 2000? | |
| Petroleum | 44.1 | 43.8 | 43.9 | 43.5 | 37.2 | |
| Natural Gas | 33.0 | 31.4 | 28.1 | 24.3 | 17.7 | |
| Coal | 18.2 | 17.2 | 16.8 | 18.4 | 16.3 | |
| Hydropower | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.1 | |
| Nuclear Power | 0.6 | 3.2 | 7.0 | 10.1 | 25.7 | |
Jones (1971:367) said: "The amount of fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas) is finite, and any extrapolation in our present rate of consumption will lead to the exhaustion of readily available reserves in about 100 years (or somewhere between 30 and 300 years) It is academic whether new reserves are found or whether our rate of consumption so vastly exceeds the rate at which these materials are being laid down that an ultimate crisis is inevitable as fossil fuels become depleted, their costs will certainly escalate." In addition to costs, there are innumerable problems with alternative sources, some related to (1) costs of labor, (2) distribution, (3) pollution, (4) other environmental impacts such as world radiation balance, (5) capital investments, (6) radionuclide hazards, and (7) the risks of military action to get energy. There are of course ethical problems and those of equity. Should the U. S. use over one-third of the world's energy? Does possession of large coal and oil reserves bring with it no responsibilities for its use? We think a use and supply problem of enormous moment exists.
Energy inputs for doing work in a watershed are substitutable. Oil and coal can be substituted for each other in some operations. There are costs of substituting, of course, but that does not deny substitutability. As prices increase, there are, likewise, costs of not substituting.
There are disputes about the substitutability of coal and oil. The price of coal is now only indirectly tied to the price of oil; it is now "cost based." Suderland (1975) reported cost figures for coal and oil at the University of Massachusetts and observed that "it does not appear that the increase in the cost of coal (a factor of 5.4) could possibly result from increased labor prices or from a concern that our coal supplies… could be depleted, but rather from companies making great profits from the crisis that is facing our nation." He recommended placing new prices on domestic coal, a proposal debated by Corley (1975). Corley advocated that production be as highly profitable as possible to attract new capital, competition, and reduced dependence on foreign energy"&3133; which might even drive down the price of oil." Miller (1973) said: "You can't talk about coal without talking about energy. You can't talk about energy without talking about oil. You can't talk about oil without talking about politics." Meyer (1974), advocating western energy development said: "So in a broad but very real sense, Americans all prosper together." Of course he neglected to mention that they also falter together. How energy is used will determine the fate of people throughout the world.
Coal
Coal is transformed solar energy. It is energy in photosynthetically developed biochemical bonds captured in primitive forests and laid in wet graves. Thousands of years after capture, it can now be used by man, like money from a forgotten bank account.
Projected coal needs for 1980 vary but are in the order of magnitude of 0.96 billion tons per year (Walsh 1974), or 1.50 billion tons per year (Miller 1973). In 1976 (Anon 1976), the estimate for potential production in 1985 was 1.04 billion tons per year. The production in 1975 was only 0.64 billion tons. Some think the 1985 production will peak at 0.90 billion tons. Whatever the real figure, the demand is about double the present annual production and not likely to be met.
As Miller (1973) said, the coal needs, if met, in effect mean building a whole new industry on the existing one. Since coal production has been stable at about 0.550 billion tons per year (Osborn 1974:477), (although Miller [1973] used a figure of 0.590 billion and Walsh [1974] said 0.603), this increase seems unlikely. The reasons for present stability include: concentration, elasticities, and identity.
Concentration means that the smaller companies cannot expand. At Four Corners (the intersection of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah) the largest coal-burning facility in the U.S. consumes 25,000 tons of coal a day (Wolff 1972). This one facility is owned by Peabody Coal Company which, until just before a recent antitrust suit, was owned by Kenecott Copper Company. Peabody produced 0.072 billion tons of coal in 1972 and plans to produce over 0.140 billion tons by 1980. This one company produces 12 percent of the industry total. Several large industries significantly control the coal industry… and these large industries are controlled by oil companies. Oil companies are, by and large, energy companies with major holdings in coal, gas, and uranium (Miller 1973). Oil companies now own 47 percent of known world uranium reserves and 12 percent of the coal reserves. These lines of control should be well known by the manager, for it is they who "pluck the elasticities," and the concept of an energy company should be dominant in systems planning and control.
The coal industry is highly centralized. There are 1200 mining companies but 15 produce 51 percent of the coal. The 50 largest companies produce 67 percent. Of the top 15 companies, most are owned by oil and metal companies. Others are independent or owned by utilities such as American Electric Power, the largest private electrical utility in the world.
Elasticities resulting from the interchangeable nature or substitutability of coal, gas, and oil for electrical power production prevent acceleration because of the generation of unfavorable price relations among these resources. In general, a ton of coal is equivalent to 3.5 barrels of oil.
Even though substitutes of energy are often possible, whether oil will be substituted for coal remains to be seen, given the ownership and interest. Osborn (1974) observed that 55 percent of the electric power now generated from fossil fuels is from coal. For coal to replace oil and gas in generating electricity, 0.288 billion tons of coal per year will be required…in addition to the 0.350 billion tons per year now used by electric utilities. The 0.288 billion tons of coal would be needed to replace the 1.2 million barrels of oil used daily by electric utilities. Osborn (1974) observed: "Clearly, our foreign petroleum requirements can be significantly reduced within the next few years if we move quickly and effectively to replace oil and gas by coal for present and planned use in power plants."
The reasons why the substitutions may not occur are (Walsh 1974, Osborn 1974):
Coal is not really coal. To speak of coal as if it had an identity as a single resource is not realistic. Coal is not one but many resources, as previously stated. Each coal resource has associated characteristics that may produce secondary costs or externalities such as ash, SO, and mine waste. Thus, there are limits that will be reached before the last ton of coal is mined. These limits will be imposed by transportation systems, costs, health and labor considerations, skill of the work force, the pollution tolerances of a latter-day human population, and, eventually, a high input to output ratio.
What are the natures of the coal resources and their duration? Time (April 18, 1977 p. 58) highlighted coal as the U.S. 's most abundant fuel resource. Total reserves are estimated at 1560 billion tons or an adequate supply for over 2500 years at present use rates (Grim and Hill 1974:9).
Coal now makes up 80 percent of the nation's energy reserves (Garvey 1971) . It is the only domestic energy sou rce capable of meeting past U. S. requirements. Coal makes up only 20 percent of present energy use. Oil and gas use significantly exceeds coal use (Garvey 1971). The problem with numbers about the duration of coal resource use is that they are contested, in fact and in phraseology. J. H. Gibbons, University of Tennessee, said that at present rates of market development, the coal could be depleted in 100 years, not the 300 to 400 years projected. Miller (1973) reported only 1300 billion tons of coal in reserve, only 390 billion of which are readily recoverable. Dunham et al. (1974:346) said coal reserves economically recoverable by today's mining technology are 200 billion tons while total domestic reserves are 3000 billion tons. Miller (1973) estimated a 600 year coal supply at current consumption. Starr (1971) said that U.S. energy demand will double (2.0 times) by the year 2001. Ottee (1973:81) agreed with Starr and said: "Many land problems center around energy, its production and consumption. Overall [world] energy consumption has tripled since the mid-1930's and is expected to increase by over 150 percent [1.5 times] by the year 2000." These are reasons enough to suspect fewer, rather than more, years that the supply will last.
Access to Coal
There are major dimensions of the problem of access to coal in the U. S. These include:
Anyone of these has a reasonable degree of uncertainty associated with it. Assuming 90 percent confidence about each, in terms of information as well as stability of the situation (a relatively bold assumption), the confidence associated with 1 and 2, 3 and 4 is only 66 percent. Decision making about the relatively small problem of access is highly uncertain. For example, the areas where coal is mined change dynamically in response to coal availability, labor and other phenomena, all integrated in and responsive to a profit margin. Otte (1973:81) said that surface mining has moved westward. Illinois is now the leading area for stripped coal, having passed Appalachia in 1965. Some 77 percent of the U. S. 's strippable coal reserve lies in 13 states west of the Mississippi River. Appalachia contains about 38 percent of the total bituminous coal reserves in the U. S. and almost 20 percent of the total reserves of all types of coal (Widner 1971).
Location relative to use (Manners 1964) has many ramifications. One is that the farther the distance, the higher the costs to consumers. While costs will continue to be counted in dollars for many years, we expect that very soon costs will begin to be counted in energy. The expressions will be: for every kilocalorie of coal energy we have to use, how much energy did it cost to extract and transport it? In other words, what is the net energy gained by the coal mining system? All energy costs must be counted, including those of producing the steel rails and cars as well as the mechanical devices and gasoline required in the extraction and reclamation process. The net-energy-accounting system will eventually tend to reduce distances between use-centers and the mines or significantly alter transmission strategies. Electric power generation may tend toward mine-mouth plants, rather than coal shipment to such plants.
Coal Gasification
There is a bridging system between the coal, gas, oil, and energy forests. It is coal gasification. Gasification of coal into H2, CO, CO2 and N2 is a century-technique. It was a well developed practice between 1942 and 1960 (Abelson 1973) but laid aside in the oil-rich years. It is a means of getting many of the energy and chemical values from coal, either by processing mined coal (Squires 1974), or using a seam without mining it and with minimum land disturbance.
Depending on the method used (Squires 1974), the products are: power, a mixture of CO, H, and N, with a heating value one sixth that of natural gas; or industrial gas, a mixture of CO and H, with a heating value 13 times that of natural gas. The gasses are converted to ammonia, methanol, or synthetic gasoline. Squires (1974) said industrial gas might be converted to methane for a natural gas substitute or converted to liquid hydrocarbons for fuel. These syntheses entail energy losses of 20 percent and require hardware that is both expensive and costly of energy to manufacture.
Oil and natural gas-using industries can be re-equipped to use industrial gas. Such gas would "free up" or substitute for about 3 to 4 x 1012 cu. ft. of natural gas annually and perhaps 300 to 400 x 106 barrels of oil. Squires (1974) said that such re-equipping could establish a new buffer against energy demands within 6 years. Many new small producers, serving individual industries, could be operational in 2 years. He listed several reviews of new concepts for converting coal to pipeline gas and liquid fuels. Osborn (1974) said that 25 percent of the energy in coal is lost in converting it to gas or oil. "These fuels will be expensive," he said, "and will certainly not be in large scale production for a decade or more."
Gas
Natural gas production reached its peak in 1972 (Meyer 1974). World annual use of natural gas is about 24 trillion cu. ft. Less than half of that amount is held in reserve. Demand increases by about 7 percent annually. The FPC reports a 65 year supply, based on a demand increase of 1.4 percent per year. U. S. use is 65 billion cu. ft. per day. Demand runs ahead of supply and Miller (1973:40) reported one observer's estimate of running out of domestic reserves by 1986. Local shortages of gas have already occurred in many states, forcing the closing of schools, businesses, and factories. Among all world energy sources, natural gas supplies are the least adequate, but gas is also the energy resource with fewest environmental impacts. Air pollution from gas is less than 5 percent of that of coal. Extraction and distribution cause major land use impacts. Pressure to exploit gas deposits of the Atlantic outer-continental shelf is mounting.
Oil
Like coal, oil is concentrated in a few companies with great power over price and supply. These companies have major holdings in other energy sources such as coal and uranium (Barnes 1971). Three-fourths of all U.S. oil is produced in Texas and Louisiana, constituting problems of transportation, centralization of power, and ease of disruption of the supply system.
Present oil use is about 14.7 million barrels a day (1977). Osborn (1974) said 17 million barrels. About 11.6 million barrels are produced from domestic wells and the deficit (about one-fourth or 3.1 million barrels) is imported (oil production was down in 1974 to 8.9 million barrels). Estimates for 1985 demand were at one time for 30.2 million barrels a day; domestic wells may produce half of this. The other half (15.2 million barrels) must be imported (Miller 1973:40). The over-whelming bulk (95 percent) of imported oils comes from Canada and Venezuela (Dole 1972). Crude oil production in the U.S. reached a peak in 1970 and has been declining (Meyer 1974). The gap to be filled is between 15 and 17 million barrels of oil a day, an enormous figure. Miller (1973:38) commented that the U.S. will run out of domestic oil and gas by 1985. About 6 million barrels a day can be provided from Western Hemisphere sources. The remaining 9-11 million barrels a day must come from somewhere else, now likely to be only North Africa and the Middle East (Dole 1972). Just 10 years from now, 34 percent of U. S. oil may be coming from trouble-ridden politically unstable countries. 1 The U. S. consumes 39 percent of the world's oil, yet owns only 8 percent of the world's reserves (Dole 1972:670).
"One great engineering challenge is to improve oil extraction efficiency. On the average, only 31 percent of the oil discovered is recovered (Dole 1972). Oil shale offers much low-grade oil, but costs are high, water requirements are high, (in water-short areas),
| Since this report was written [1980] major shifts have occurred in U.S. oil imports from Iran. In OPEC price policy (June 1979), and in natural gas deregulation (1980) and rediscoveries of reserves (not noted above). |
Off-shore oil is located in the continental shelf, 80 percent of which is owned by the government. Oil spills and leaks (4000 to 8000 gallons per day into the Santa Barbara Channel), accidents, platform and extraction technology, capital, unproven reserves, and on-shore secondary impacts are all problem-associated with this energy supply which seems likely to expand. All efforts to expand known reserves escalate oil usage in an era when clear messages exist for "go slow" and plan the uses of a dwindling, invaluable, non-renewable natural resource.
According to 1974 estimates, somewhere between 200 billion and 400 billion barrels of oil and between 1000 and 2000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas remain to be found and recovered in Alaska and the lower 48 states and along continental shelves. (By comparison, the United States has produced about 115 billion barrels of oil and 437 trillion cubic feet of natural gas since the 1860's.)
Nuclear Power
While natural gas use may have the fewest environmental impacts, nuclear power is the most hazardous of all energy sources. The first full scale nuclear power plant became operational in 1957. Nuclear power now meets about 1 percent of U. S. energy demand. It is expected to reach 15 percent by 1985 and 30-50 percent by 2000. The nuclear power capacity could reach 275,000 megawatts by 1985, over 1,200,000 by 2000 A. D.
| The Three-Mile Island Reactor accident occurred in May, 1979 shortly after this paper was written. |
Nuclear power output is based on the energy of uranium. The energy of one pound of uranium is equivalent to 3 million pounds of coal. At present, techniques to get the energy out of uranium are inefficient. About 20-25 thousand tons of ore must be processed for every ton of U3 O8 produced. Uranium is expensive, about $30 per pound. Light water reactors only utilize 2 percent of the energy in their fuel. At that recovery cost, total U. S. resources are 2.4 million tons. To reach the 1985 projected needs, advanced supplies of 2 million tons are needed. Since costs are not likely to decrease, it appears that recoverable ore will be depleted before 2000 A. D. The AEC reported that current reactors will use uranium reserves in 25-50 years. By then, seemingly oblivious to the supply problem, the nation expects 1000 nuclear power plants eventually to supply 50 percent of the country's energy needs. To do so, the AEC projected two-thirds of nuclear power will be from liquid metal fast breeder reactors (McManus 1973).
The liquid metal fast breeder reactor, a yet unperfected fission technology, when and if developed, will use 60 percent or more of the energy of fuel and can use low grade ores. The result could be to extend the uranium energy resource for centuries. The technology is expected to be commercial in 1986 but no significant impact on energy supply is expected until 2000.
There is hope that fusion power can be developed but projections for a series of breakthroughs seem far off (Gough and Eastlund 1971; Rose 1971; Post and Ribe 1974) - Such technology may supply power for eons, but it remains, according to many, a mere hope.
It is very easy to get caught up on analysis of supply and demand; numbers have a way of mesmerizing. We think that a decision must be made about whether to use nuclear power or not. To use nuclear power is one of humankind's most profound decisions in its history on earth. Why so many people seem able to make it so easily reflects a grave lack of knowledge about radioactivity, power, health, and ecosystems. It reflects a peculiar risk-taking attitude influenced by lack of knowledge, the importance of energy, and the phenomena of deferred gratification. Few are willing to defer the benefits which are sought now.
There is no question of the need for or the importance of energy to people. Arguments for nuclear power tend to be arguments for power. The arguments against nuclear power are (Gofman and Tamplin 1971; Lewis 1972; Committee 17, Environmental Mutagen Society 1975; Eisenbud and Gleason 1970):
In 1975 there were 55 operational plants, 170 underway. There is a need for a moratorium on future plants until many of the above problems are resolved. Anyone problem area alone is enough to justify a moratorium; there are at least eleven major reasons. Hammond (1974) argued that catastrophies will not occur, that spills can be cleaned up, and that other energy alternatives have higher costs of lives, dollars, or environmental damage. Stable power sources seem unrealistic. In that a cartel can divert power sources, so can an agency be responsible, under the Constitution, for the health, safety, and welfare of citizens. Cartel, agency, or price -- they are merely forces changing the nature, supply, and availability of resources. They are forces exercised which result in substitutions in types of energy used.
"Environmentalists" have been blamed for retarding nuclear power development. (About 10 years is required from plan to production.) However, before Earth Day, electric utilities were changing their minds about "going nuclear" due to widespread operating difficulties, frequent shutdowns, defective equipment, inexperienced labor, and delayed deliveries.
An alternative energy source, now experimental, is laser fusion. Laser fusion creates miniature thermonuclear explosions by hitting very small hollow glass spheres called microballoons filled with a duterium and tritium mixture with converging laser pulses of enormous power. Now used as a thermonuclear weapons simulation tool, laser fusion seems to have potential for generating electrical power. Net energy will be a major question for the facility, and the amount of electricity required to run it is yet unknown (Metz 1974:519 and Gillette 1975).
Wastes
The U. S. generates 1.1 billion tons of inorganic mineral wastes and 1.52 billion tons of organic waste per year. These wastes can be converted into synthetic fuels. There are many problems in doing so with:
The above noted organic wastes contain only 880 million tons of dry, ash free organic material. Over 80 percent of this is so widely dispersed that it could not be used. Thus, 176 million tons could be readily collected for conversion. It may produce an equivalent of 170 million barrels of oil -- roughly 3 percent of 1971 crude oil consumption, or 1.36 trillion standard cubic feet of methane -- roughly 6 percent of 1971 natural gas consumption. The technology is still being studied and many problems remain unsolved.
Direct waste incineration has been used to produce steam but it often cannot be sold. Oil or methane produced from waste can be stored and transported, reducing this problem. The Nashville-Davidson (Tenn.) plant using refuse will operate at 30 percent of the cost of using conventional fuel (Ford Foundation 1974). It will also reduce pollution and save energy by replacing small heating plants throughout the city which now create air pollution. Initially, the plant will save 20 million kilowatt-hours in electrical usage, later 77 million per year.
Hydroelectric
Most viable dam sites have already been used. While more dams will be built, few will be hydroelectric. Hydroelectricity only supplies 20 percent of all U. S. electric energy, so even massive additions would contribute little. Environmental and other impacts and problems are profound as exemplified by Brocking (1973). Efficiency of current power plats is decreasing due to dam siltation, changes in water flow, and transmission problems.
There is only one predominant requirement for construction of a plant: a dam site with an adequate amount of rainfall or snowfall in the area. A continuous source of water is needed to tu rn the turbines. On this point turns one of the main complaints of the environmentalist: water fluctuations both above and below the plants. These fluctuations can cause a rise in temperature of the water above the dam often causing the dieoff of some species of fish, changes in migration and spawning habits, and thus a reduced fish resource.
Below the dam, the water is usually cooler than it is above because the water is generally taken from the deeper depths of the reservoir. Because of this, the cooler water causes a dieoff of the original warmwater fish that were there. However, coldwater species can be stocked and will generally survive in the new environment. The relative utility of these groups to society is poorly determined or evaluated.
Another problem created by these dams is the obstruction to the passage of anadromous fish, such as salmon, trout, and striped bass. Fishways must then be constructed to get such fish past the dams to spawn, and when the young or eggs return downstream they must pass safely through the turbines of the plant.
Other problems are wildlife habitat losses, wilderness losses, agriculturally productive land losses, siltation and reduced effectiveness of the dam water pollution, and recreation conflicts. In some areas of low rainfall, evaporation acceleration is critical.
There is now a method to control fluctuations. Water power is being stored and used in times of drought or extra drain on the system. This pump-storage system can use surplus generating capacity during low-demand periods to pump large quantities of water to a storage reservoir at a higher elevation, then generate hydroelectric power by releasing the water to pass back through the pump/turbines. This system can be used to complement nuclear power plants output. However, an alternative energy source is needed to run the pumps.
One of the major problems now facing America is whether or not it should continue trying to increase the efficiency of decreasingly efficient hydroelectric plants or switch over to the nuclear power plants.
Hydrogen
Another alternative energy source is hydrogen. Energy storage is a problem with all methods of energy production. Consumer demand varies hourly, causing the average power plant load factor to be about 0.5 (Winsche et al. 1973). In the current energy economy, 80 percent of the consumption is for uses other than electric generation. "Thus," said Winsche et al. (1973), "the present industrial and domestic technology is geared to combustible chemical fuels. Therefore, the future supply of nuclear energy to all sectors of the energy economy depends on the development of portable and storable synthetic fuels which can be derived from nuclear energy and some abundantly available or recyclable resource." They conclude that hydrogen is such a resource. See Jones (1971). Hydrogen may be used in liquid form (-423&#deg;F) or metal hydrides which release it when heated. Sources are electrolysis or coal or oil gasification.
Because of increasing siting problems for other power generators, transportation to urban centers may be required, even at costs higher than natural gas. Winsche et al. (1973) compared the hydrogen system to six other energy systems and found it very promising. "All the technology required for implementation is feasible but a great deal of development and refinement is necessary." It appears to be a viable secondary source of energy derived from coal or nuclear power.
Ocean Currents and the Osmotic Process
The ocean's. currents are largely caused by solar heating of the ocean at the equator and its cooling at the poles. Seventy percent of the solar radiation reaching the earth falls on the oceans (Metz 1973).
Heat is only usable by its transfer to a colder body (Othmer and Roels 1973) . Deep sea water may be from 15&#deg; to 25&#deg;C colder than surface water but there is little conduction of heat (top to bottom), and little mixing becuase of differences in water density. These energy differences are small, but considering the amount, they represent an unusually large source of energy. If it can be converted to electrical energy, the Gulf stream alone could generate more than 75 times the entire electric power produced in the U. S. (Othmer and Roels 1973).
Othmer and Roels (1973) hold that such utilization is within the capabilities of present day technology. They propose bringing cold water from the deep ocean to the land, warmed by the heat of suitable power stations, and passed to ponds where mariculture would be practiced. An alternative is to bring warm tropical waters to land and evaporate them. Metz (1973) described a power plant at sea that would be generating electricity, electrolyzing water, and returning hydrogen to shore. The result in both cases is low-pressure steam, turbine generation of electricity, and fresh water condensates.
Norman (1974) depicted a system that captures energy from that released in the mixing of freshwater and salt water at constant temperature. By employing an osmotic salination converter, Norman speculated that a freshwater flow of 1 m/sec could provide 2.24 megawatts of salination power. In addition to having an impact on estuaries, there are other sites and uses to which this source might be put. Norman (1975) later demonstrated economic feasibility.
Beck (1975) described an open-cycle system using low-pressure steam to elevate water which is then run through a land-based hydraulic turbine to generate power. The device he described is analogous to an air lift pump. Zener and Fetkovich (1975) proposed a modification (using foam) increasing the efficiency of the process and reducing capital costs. Others doubt the feasibility of such a system largely because of gigantic conceptual problems that must be solved.
Geothermal Energy
While various experts can be found who feel people have no need to worry about running out of resources to run power plants as well as those who feel sources are rapidly being eliminated, few will deny that present electrical output is not likely to meet current demands and that both fossil-fuel as well as nuclear power plants for increasing electrical output create serious pollution.
Other energy sources have been sought. The result has been a renewed interest in what was once considered an impractical source, geothermal energy (Lessing 1969, Lear 1970, Gilluly 1970, White and Williams 1975). In Energy in the Future (1953), Putnam stated that the potential contribution of geothermal sites is so low that it will not be used. Others have taken the position that it may very well be possible at least to meet peak power loads with geothermal sou rces .
The major types of geothermal fields are: 1) fumaroles which produce basically "dry," slightly superheated steam at the surface; 2) hot-springs which produce boiling water at the surface and of which only a small portion flashes to steam; and 3) geysers which throw up hot water and steam. The conditions necessary for a tappable geothermal field include a large chamber of molten rock relatively close to the surface and porous underground reservoirs with channels connected to the heat source. The heat source, or magma, is generally associated with an area of volcanic activity, as the belt extending down the western United States into South America. Recent evidence shows that the center of the earth acts as a giant reactor, i.e., it is heated by the measurable decay of radioactive elements found in small traces in all rock which would indicate an almost unlimited heat source (magma to convert the water in the porous rock reservoi rs to steam).
Those on one side of the geothermal energy issue feel that the share of energy that could be supplied from geothermal sources is unknown. They base their argument on: 1) a dependable source of geothermal energy must be proved out before it can be committed, 2) geothermal sources cannot be proved until they are discovered, and the discovery process has just begun, and 3) the need for power must be confirmed before any share in fulfilling the need can be fixed. From this, it is easy to understand why such people see that thermal power plants could be most useful in meeting constant demands. In the Southwest, U. S. geothermal energy sources could produce power to feed into the national electricity grid and help the East with its critical power needs. This is entirely in line with geothermal power which does not require boilers which need to be heated up, and which can optionally hook into 'standby wells' that will supply sufficient power to meet peak loads.
The advantages of geothermal energy are as follows:
The disadvantages are:
Some potentials which are created:
In addition. to the advantages, experience to date would seem to favor local development of geothermal power. New Zealand and Iceland are already using power from this source for heating and for electrical production. For 60 years it has been used in Italy to generate electricity for state trains. In San Francisco it produces 250,000 pounds of steam per hour to operate a 12,500 KW plant to serve a community of 50,000. To a limited extent it has been used to heat some U. S. homes and offices, and to generate electricity.
Solar Energy
It is hard to know what energy topics appropriately fall under the topic of solar. They include: availability, collectors, periodicity and weather, space heating, hot water heaters, air conditioning, power plants, hot air dryers, solar stills, electricity from ocean thermal gradients, orbiting geosynchronous power plants, and windmills. Herein we emphasize solar corporate and private collectors, but we wish to remain broad. Solar collectors in southern areas may free other energy sources for part time (non-light periods) use or serve as a regional substitute.
The Saudi Arabians are acutely aware that their petroleum stocks are limited and are investing in a major way in solar energy (Hayes 1975). Solar stoves, hot air systems for space heating or crop drying, water heaters, and water pumps for irrigation are all uses to which such energy is now put, including the generation of electricity.
"Solar radiation is the most abundant form of energy available to man, and is so plentiful that the energy arriving on 0.5 percent of the land a rea of the United States is more than the total energy needs of the country projected for the year 2000" (Hammond 1972: 1088). Nevertheless, the technology is not available for widespread, economical use. Proponents of solar energy believe that such systems may ultimately supply as much as one-half of the nearly 20 percent of total U. S. energy used in space heating and cooling.
At one time, the solar collectors needed to supply a 1000-megawatt power station were computed as covering an area of 30 square kilometers. Costs and envi ronmental impacts were enormous. Lesser designs have emerged, though the debate over the best systems continues.
Fossil and nuclear fuels may overheat the world climate. Even if economics leads society to favor nuclear fission and fusion energy processes for the future, that direction cannot be taken for totally unacceptable global heating is likely to result. This single factor forces solar energy into contention for the futu reo Other energy sources could then be used to keep the world economy from undesirable short-term lapses.
Solar power is now economical, if the externalities of fossil and nuclear fuels are considered. Converting solar energy into a usable form of energy has been carried out on two different scales: commercial and private. Both systems work generally on the same principle: the "green house" effect (Hammond 1971, Griswold 1958).
Converting to solar energy on a commercial scale would be mainly confined to the relatively cloudless deserts of the southwestern United States. This system would trap the sun's radiation by means of specially-coated collecting surfaces. They absorb the infrared light without reflecting it. One possible collecting technique depends on the intrinsic properties of the materials used to construct the collector. The collecting surfaces would consist of a coat of a semiconductor that would be opaque to visible light but transparent to infrared. Underneath this first layer would be a second layer of a material such as gold which has a very low emissivity in the infrared. Because of the transparency of the semiconductor to infrared radiation, the composite coating would act like a mirror - a desirable property because high reflectivity corresponds to low emissivity - in the infrared.
The favored design for capturing solar heat and generating steam electricity is a central receiver toward which sunlight is reflected by a large array of sunfollowing mi rrors. Temperatures in the central receiver reach 1000&#deg;C. As with other major commercial solar power, these seem limited to the relatively cloudless southwest.
Liquid sodium would transfer the heat from the absorption plates to a thermal reservoir. The reservoir consists of a tank containing a gutectic mixture of molten salts, which can maintain a constant temperature over a wide range of energy storage. The molten salt would provide a source from which energy could be drawn by a steam turbine as required, so that operation overnight and for short periods of cloudy weather would be possible. Photovoltaic batteries are now a storage possibility (Hammond 1974).
The private, individual system of converting solar energy to heat is similar to the above system but much smaller and more simplified. This system would be located in a private residence. It too would have absorption plates, located on the roof of the house. Each plate would consist of several panels of specially treated, non-reflective glass, partially overlapping but with quarter-inch air spaces between them. Cool air from the house, pushed up to the collectors th rough ducts by a blower, enters the na rrow passageways between the plates of glass. The moving air "wipes-off" the heat and carries it to the rooms below or into storage.
There are various types of storage chambers including 5 meter by 1 meter tubes filled with coarse gravel. The heat is blown into the bottom of these tubes, forcing all cold air out of the top. The gravel collects the heat and holds it for as long as 24 hours. In this way heat can be drawn for use during the night or on cloudy days. As an added precaution in case of a long stretch of sunless days or extremely cold days, an auxiliary heater is incorporated into the system to supplement the heat.
Sorensen (1975) argued that there has been no decline in the amount of energy spent on each new unit of increased GNP per capita. "…The improvement of living standards (basic needs and luxury) constitutes a diminishing fraction of each new unit of increased GNP per capita; the rest is spent on structural changes required by the growth itself, on its side effects, and on managing its wastes" (Sorensen 1975:255-256). He suggested that the criterion for energy production and conversion systems is: "Which system would be most compatible with the formulation of a society in which the largest possible fraction of the GNP would be placed at the direct disposal of the population, instead of its being absorbed by the structure of the system itself?" His answers are: wind and solar power.
Solar energy is now given research priority equal to that of the breeder reactor (Hammond 1975). A recent report suggests 25 percent of the nation's energy may come from solar technologies by 2020 A. D. (Table 3).
| Table 3. Estimates of the heat, electric power, and fuels to be supplied by solar energy in the United States , as projected by the Energy Research and Development Administration (from Hammond 1975:539) | |||
| Solar Technology | 1985 | 2000 | 2020 |
| Direct thermal applications (in units of 10 Btu = 1 Q per year |
|||
| Heating and Cooling | 0.15 Q | 2.0 Q | 15 Q |
| Agricultural Applications | 0.03 | 0.6 | 3 |
| Industrial Applications | 0.02 | 0.4 | 2 |
| Total | 0.2 | 3 | 20 |
| Solar Electric Capacity (in units of 10 watts = 1 Gwe) |
|||
| Wind | 1.0 Gwe | 20 Gwe | 60 Gwe |
| Photovoltaic | 0.1 | 30 | 80 |
| Solar Thermal | 0.05 | 20 | 70 |
| Ocean Thermal | 0.1 | 10 | 40 |
| Total | 1.3 Gwe | 80 Gwe | 250 Gwe |
| Equivalent Fuel Energy | 0.07 | 5 Q | 15 Q |
| Fuels from Biomass | 0.5 | 3 Q | 10 Q |
| Total Solar Energy | 10 Q | 100 Q | 105 Q |
| Projected U.S. Energy Demand | 100 Q | 150 Q | 180 Q |
Biological Matter
The collection and bioconversion of solar energy by plants make much energy available to people. Whether they can use it effectively remains to be seen. No longer able to use firewood because of air pollution, there are alternatives.
Williams (1974) described a 1,000-megawatt central station power plant that operated at a load factor of 75 percent with a thermal efficiency of 35 percent, based on harvesting a 60 sq. km. (150 square mile) land area of some unspecified fuel.
"It has been calculated that the total cost of the fuel would be $0.06/MBtu for a $250/acre land cost, 1400 Btu/ft/day insolation, 3% capture efficiency, 8% interest rate, 0.6% tax rate, and $200/acre harvesting cost, and the total cost of the electric power from this 'energy plantation' is computed to be 5 milis/KWhr." Alich and Inman (1973) developed a comprehensive analysis of a biomass plantation including energy available in various woods and plant parts. They concluded (Alich and Inman 1973:107-108) that based on economics, logistics, and energy balance the biomass would be a suitable fuel for electric power production by direct firing. Although units and stations of the scale have not been designed for biomass combustion in the past, many of the required components have been developed for alternative uses. Large scale plants are most desirable but plants in the few hundred megawatt range would compare favorably with coal plants of comparable size.
Reed and Lerner (1973) argued that a hydrogen economy is a future possibility but there are no ways for making hydrogen cheaply, for storing or transporting it, adapting it to the automobile, or using it safely. They argue instead for methanol, an attractive alternative fuel to gasoline. Mullen (1975) engaged in a useful debate on methanol for auto fuel. Methanol (wood alcohol) is now produced in volumes equivalent to 1 percent of gasoline production. It can be made from natural gas, petroleum, coal, oil shale, wood, or farm and municipal wastes. A methanol economy could draw on flexible and interchangeable sources.
Reed and Lerner (1973) described methanol or methyl-fuel (having other alcohols) as an auto fuel. They claimed it also had other major fuel uses if it becomes sufficiently plentiful. It is suited for use in fuel cells, a means for converting chemical energy to electricity (rather than burning). It has been claimed that pig and chicken manure and sewage could be used to produce enough methanol to meet all present fuel needs in the U. S. and this would simultaneously reduce waste problems by one-half. At least prolongation of fossil fuel supplies could be achieved. Coal is the best candidate for methanol production (from gasification and synthesis of gas).
Reed and Lerner (1973) said: "Forests, which are one means of capturing solar energy, formed the principal energy source for this country until about 1875. Commercial forests now cover about 23 percent of the land area of the United States. If the conversion of solar energy by these forests with an efficiency approaching 1 percent could be achieved by improved forest management…, the annual energy harvest might be more than our present energy needs. The advantage of utilizing forests for producing methanol is that whole trees can be used, not merely those fractions that make good lumber or pulp. It has been calculated that between 5 and 20 percent of our commercial forests operated as 'energy plantations,' could supply all of our electrical power….". (The real costs as well as ecological externalities of doing so are significant.)
Rose (1975) said that the "energy plantation" concept is inoperable because land requirements are so large. He claimed that assessments of wood for energy are conflicting "because conclusions were based on specific production situations, utilizations, and technologies." He concluded (Rose 1975:493): "
"In terms of gross or net energy, coal mining operations will usually be much more energy productive than intensive cultures of annual or perennial crops. After all, coal beds contain the accumulated energy of thousands of plant generations. In terms of quantifiable costs, though, energy can be produced competitively in an 'energy plantation.' The potential of wood as a supplementary source of energy is already present and will becom_ greater with the continued price increases for conventional fuels. Intensified silvicultural management could help solve some energy problems and might make contributions to a better environment similar to the ones made by modern agricultural technology. Energy production alternatives must be compared on a case-by-case basis for continued reevaluations will be necessary."
Biological Matter -- Firewood
Since the average heat value of wood is far less than the average value of petroleum and natural gas, and is about two-thirds that of most coal, burning the nation's entire annual timber harvest would contribute relatively little to total energy requirements (Grantham and Ellis 1974). If it solved the entire space heating problem (which it cannot), it would solve only 18 percent of the present energy use problem.
Not now a major energy source, firewood is not likely to become one. It can be a supplement, however. It requires seasoning 9 to 10 months, is bulky to store, and requires continual refueling, usually manually. However, as a supplement it shows promise. A cord of air dried red-oak having a weight of 3680 pounds will produce 21.3 million BTU of available heat which is equivalent to 166 gal. of #2 fuel oil or 26,800 cu. ft. of natural gas. A major advantage of wood is that it is renewable. Fireplaces are ten times less efficient than good stoves.
Biological Matter - Peat
Recently, applications have been made for long term leases of hundreds of square miles of land in order to mine peat and convert it to methane. Others propose to burn it directly as a fuel for municipal power or heating plants. Ireland now uses peat as fuel. The heating value of air dried peat is superior to wood, about equal to lignite, and half that of high-grade coal. Peat composes 1.0 percent of the world's fossil fuel resources and thus cannot be considered an essential solution to the problem. Extensive strip mining of peat would cause major hydrological changes.
Wind
The great public need and interest in alternative forms of energy are counter to those of oil companies who, quite practically, attempt to increase the value of their domestic reserves and liquidate foreign holdings, maximizing current income from such holdings and protecting against loss of such facilities later (Miller 1973:39).
Wind is a potential alternative energy form. It can reduce demand for oil and coal. Like ocean currents, it is readily categorized as a type of solar energy. Wade (1974) sketched the research in progress on windmills of which he said seem "fair set to make a comeback from the trash heap of technical history. "
Hammond (1975) reported that a 100 kilowatt wind generator was due to be operational in 1975. The optimum size for wind generators is believed to be a few megawatts. Cost reductions by a factor of 2 to 4 will be necessary for electric utility use. Because of intermittent wind, storage is a problem. Hammond (1975) described a stationary open-top tower in which tornado like winds are generated. The resulting wind tu rbine is highly efficient, especially at wind velocities less than 100 km/hr. The design (by James Yen of Grumman Aerospace Corp.) is thought to produce as much as 1 megawatt of power from a turbine less than 2 meters in diameter in a tower 60 m tall and 20 m across. The speculation is that such turbines will be competitive with coal fired plants in some regions. Peterson (1974) nevertheless observed that"… large scale generation of electricity [e.g. 160 billion kw] by harnessing the wind, even as a supplemental source of power is not feasible economically."
Electricity
As if there wasa planned effort to make a tangled-web of a topic as complex and mind boggling as possible, electricity must be brought into the energy picture. Of course it has been a part of most of the previous sections, but largely implicit. The usable form taken by much energy is electricity.
For 30 years, power use has doubled every 10 years (Wolff 1972:33) compared to total energy consumption doubling every 20 years, and without major efforts to change this, the pattern is likely to continue. Population increases account for from 20 (Holcomb 1970) to 40 percent (Hirst and Herendeen 1972) of the increase. Estimates of power consumption vary and are probably meaningless for they reflect inefficient uses, subsidized prices, past technology, and traditional energy-use attitudes including advertising by utilities to increase demands. "Increasingly, the utilities have come under attack for stimulating demand even while they claim a dire need for increasing generating capacity (Wolff 1972:34). Seventeen states restrict or prohibit utility promotion. Decisions about the quality of the natural environment, our material standards of living, and equity will influence the demand for energy and will, in turn, be affected by our use of energy. It seems that energy use per capita will at least quadruple by 2000.
The electric power industry uses about two-thirds of the coal consumed in the U. S. (Walsh 1974:336). Half of all coal goes to the electric utility (Miller 1973). In 1970, 25 percent of the raw energy resources consumed in the U.S. were used to generate electricity. Of the energy consumed to make electricity, roughly a third is actually converted into electric power and the rest into waste heat.
The transmission of energy that is achieved by electricity is made with economic tradeoffs with gas and pipelines, oil, coal by rail, coal by coal slurry, and coal by gasification. These are among the most complex of network analyses.
Esthetic impacts of overhead powerlines, ecological effects (particularly hydrological) of underground lines, and inefficiencies (9 percent) in transmission are dominant themes of problems. Other problems include ozone, electro-magnetic fields, right-of-way clearance, maintenance by herbicides, and erosion (including that from service roads). The power is sent to the users at almost any cost. There appears to be little influence attempted on the distribution of power users. Changes in distribution could reduce the power line impacts and energy lost in the transmission system. This could be done, in part, by modifying energy prices by a transmission distance factor.
Policy
Throughout our studies we have found that we slip easily from technological to policy solutions, as was done in the paragraph above. As gas, oil, and coal are substitutable, so are policy, technology, law, and price. As new technologies are needed, so are new policies. A far-sighted, integrated policy is badly needed at the national and world level. Dole (1972) observed that "we have energy resources, but we don't have the time. It will take time, money, and a specific act of national will to perfect the technology we need to develop these resources in the form we need." Such policy to influence energy supplies would "set time goals and fix the 'energy mix', i. e., the proportion of fuels to be consumed in the light of national needs, resource adequacy and environmental compatability" (Lapp 1971). The dimensions of such policy are:
The above is a limited set, but it has been presented to suggest the dimensions of our thought about the role of policy.
The path we have taken through the energy maze and have just described only became clear after many false attempts. Where we have arrived may, at first impression, be far removed from surface coal mine reclamation and wildlife management. We have been discussing Fig. 1 and what we see of it.
We have not discussed the need for energy conservation for it seems, given the above, self evident. In practice, there is very little being done. Energy conservation can be secured through pricing, policy, technology, research, shifts in demand, extraction methods, the substitution of methods, and a willful ethical use of less energy. There are macro-conservation efforts, such as automotive design and research, and micro-conservation efforts such as home insulation and use of electric appliances. Both are needed, but we fear that, given the time available until serious supply shortages occur, the microconservation efforts will not be sufficient. Even the macro-conservation efforts must be seriously applied. For example, while we approve of a 55-mile per hour conservation tactic, we realize that if all automotive use of fossil fuel energy was ceased, less than 25 percent of thetotal energy problem would be resolved. This is an extreme example, but it emphasizes the need to work conservation policy where it will payoff and not allow the essential solutions to be overshadowed by the tolerable or conspicuous ones.
What is the meaning of conservation, reduced use, or improved efficiency may be debated, but the objectives are the same -- improved means to face long-term shortages in fossil energy and high costs of other energy. The means include: living closer to school, work, and shopping areas; using more efficient rail and urban transport; multi-family housing; using on-site energy generators; reducing energy intensive industries; reducing energy exports; and using more durable or recyclable manufactured products.
A new awareness needs to be created in people about energetics. This is an awareness of the second law of thermodynamics and its meaning to conservation. Everything that is produced follows a relative second-law efficiency. For example, steel production is only 21 percent efficient, aluminum 13 percent, cement 10, and petroleum 9. These are based on the minimum work theoretically needed to produce a ton of substance and the amount actually used (Metz 1975:820).
Using extreme data is not very practical but it heightens our concerns. Using Exxon Corp. data (Mathews 1977) and their projections of potential savings from all manner of conservation strategies, only a 12.7 percent reduction in 1990 projected energy use could be achieved. Since these are not likely to be applied, conservation seems likely to solve less than 10 percent of the overall problem. "All conservation will accomplish is to help us keep demand for oil and gas under some degree of control until we can work our way out of the energy supply problem," said Exxon vice president Rawls (Mathews 1977 :31). So few people are willing to look at reducing the energy demand (use) that we despair. If demand were stabilized at about the 1977 level, then conservation would meet 17 percent, not 12.7 percent of use. (But even 17 percent does not sound like very much to us.)
We are gravely concerned about the changes that will occur to all aspects of society and to individuals, given the picture outlined. The magnitude of human and cultural change on the horizon is so immense that it dwarfs to insignificance or triviality the changes likely to be realized in the wildlife resource and its management. In the face of the changes, likely to engulf society, almost every special interest and every activity is trivial. We narrow our interest for the moment to wildlife, partially to escape the influence of the "its too big to do anything" syndrome. Examples of the relevance of the foregoing to wildlife management are, in no particular order:
The faunal resource manager is only one example of a professional within society about to be influenced by energy changes. The manager must attempt to unravel the complexities and plan various likely scenarios of the future, or surrender to the complexity and hope to "muddle th rough." The risks associated with both seem high, the risks associated with muddling seem to us excessively high. There are high costs of planning within such uncertainty, but these do not appear to us to be as high as the losses likely associated with day-to-day coping.
FOCUSING ON COAL RESOURCES
We have looked fairly intensively at the coal resource as a means to solving some of the problems of at least stabilizing an energy-dependent society -- and some things associated with it, such as use of a wildlife resource.
Coal now supplies about 17 percent of the energy used in the U. S. (the same percentage that could be achieved with conservation). We do not know how much coal there is. Also, we do not know how much coal reserve there is. (See also the uncertainities in oil and gas estimates; Gillette 1974, Schanz 1978.) In a letter to Representative L. J. Ryan, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, Committee on Government Operations (January 11, 1978), the Comptroller General of the U.S. said: "Our review indicated that current available data on coal resources and reserves are extremely spotty and outdated. The current 'best estimate' says we have 3.9 trillion tons of coal resources and a demonstrated reserve base of 438 billion tons of coal. Although it is readily recognized that Federal coal lands account for a large share of the Nation's coal resources, we found that these estimates are equally deficient, even for coal lands under lease."
The report of the Comptroller indicated that the best estimate (1974 data) was 3.9 trillion tons, of which 1.7 trillion tons are identified resources and 2.2 trillion tons are classified as hypothetical or undiscovered resources.
Coal "reserves" are those that can be mined under current economic, technological and legal conditions. The reserves as of January 1, 1976 were 0.438 trillion tons. Since between 0.3 and 0.9 of this is removable due to limitations at each mining site, the actual amount available is between 0.131 and 0.394 trillion tons; … the maximum amount of recoverable coal is only about one-tenth that of the alleged resource. Since the Bureau of Mines estimates only about one-half of the mineable coals can be recovered under current conditions, the amount is 0.219 trillion tons… The data were reported by the Comptroller to be rife with errors, inconsistencies, omissions, and unexplainable estimates. New laws remove thousands of acres of land that can be mined (e.g. certain alluvial valley floors and steep slopes); new laws require reclamation costs that in some areas make recovery economically impossible and thus, by definition, no longer in the reserve. The sulfur content of coal greatly impinges on its use due to air pollution regulations. In the eastern U.S., only 24 percent of the coal is considered low-sulfur. We seek practical limits for use by people, net energy in which the energetics of use do not exceed those of gain for useful, valued work.
We perceive that a national swing to coal may be a necessary policy but it certainly is not sufficient. In fact, the consequences of doing so and their associated instabilities, costs, and externalities may be so great that an alternative strategy should be adopted just as rapidly as possible.
We are aware that "may be so great" is not very convincing. We think that the general public (less than half) is unaware of energy problems partially because we (as others) do not state the probabilities for our possible outcomes. Given the vulgar mess of national energy statistics, and the limitations in energy policy models, we would not attempt detailed analysis. When a person ponders and studies and computes and tries seriously over several years to uncover feasible options and finds all roads blocked by apparently insurmountable obstacles (not mere technological needs), then we feel the above judgement is proper. To meet projected needs, most coal must come from Western coal fields where heat values are 20 to 25 percent below eastern coal, where sulfur is low (but economic advantages are lost if scrubbers are required for all generator plants), and where a battery of nearly insolvable problems reside: land use, water allocations, community perturbations, manpower problems, transportation limits (e.g., coal slurry pipe lines), federal leasing policy, states' prerogatives, and Indian land issues. There appears to be a substantial overestimation of the role of coal in meeting national energy needs. It will probably appear, superficially, to meet demands, but the energetic calculations will undoubtedly show (probably, alas, retrospectively) that we paid far more than we profited. We are now trying to exchange a low-energy resource (coal) for a high-energy resource (oil) in order to meet our balance-of-payment. We sell industrial goods and agricultural products, forgetting the second law of thermodynamics--with every change of energy from one form to another, great waste occurs.
Most coal (75 percent) is used to produce electricity. From such production facilities emerge: (1) direct impact of the facilities on wildlife habitat and increased surface runoff, (2) thermal pollution (65 to 70% is waste heat) sulfur dioxide and associated acid-rain problems, (3) nitrogen oxides and their contribution to smog, (4) particulates and carbon dioxide and their influences on global climate, (5) emission of polycyclic compounds, some carcinogenic, (6) emission of harmful trace metallic compounds, and (7) visual impacts on parklands and other scenic areas.
Part of our gloom is that we see no desirable change in national energy use patterns but rather, increases at all levels. In 1976, domestic production of oil decreased by 12 percent and now meets less than 60 percent of consumption (Abelson 1976). To continue such use will eventually force the use of coal, impacts and risks notwithstanding. To continue will ignore potential uses of the coal reserves for hydrocarbons possibly having far grei'lter value than as simple fuels for the present. As a Time (April 17, 1978) writer put it, "…the key question is whether industry [now using oil and gas] can be tempted or prodded into burning the coal in the prodigious quantities that the National Energy Plan contemplates… Unless coal is developed as rapidly as possible, the nation will have to squander more and more of its treasure on imported oil." Eventually, the pressure will shift to nuclear sources, impacts and risks likewise discounted. (In fact Lynn Seber, General Manager of TV A said, 1975, "TVA is in agreement with the great body of scientific and technical opinion in this country that nuclear power offers the only real near-term alternative to supplement coal and other fossil fuels in the production of electricity. We are further convinced that nuclear power is the safest and most environmentally clean energy alternative available.")
Given continuing pressures to mine coal, it has been estimated that the total rural area affected by strip coal mining could be as much as 5 million acres by 1980 (Bowman, 1976:29). That is a lot of wildlife habitat! Perhaps less landintensive nuclear power may be more desirable?! We are of the opinion that the wildlife resource manager does not have enough knowledge to be able to make a rational decision on even such a relatively clear-cut proposition. Both elements of the equation are affected by demand, the price of oil, generating capacities, coal production costs, coal transportation costs, nuclear regulations, discovered reserves, enrichment technology, nuclear generation capacities, the advent of synthetic fuels, and legal acts. The problem is oppressively complex.
"Implementation of an effective, responsible, national program to extricate the United States from its energy predicament could well be hopeless. For one thing, too many interacting contingencies… Even with the aid of computers at full throttle, it seems unlikely that we have the intellectual capacity to establish and manage a comprehensive, coherent energy strategy" (Anon. 1976).
Resisting giving in, we suspect that things will not get better without computers at full throttle and that by creating systems with abundant corrective feedbacks, solutions may be more evident, and systems may be created which are responsive to proposed change, and can provide timely regulatory advice.
FOCUSING ON APPALACHIAN COAL
The mining taskforce of the National Coal Policy Project concluded that the U.S. must look primarily to the Illinois Basin and Appalachia for the bulk of its future coal, and return to deep mining (Carter 1978:959). Surface mining should be restricted to the southern half of the Illinois Basin where soils tend to be less productive. These conclusions are reached based on the quantity and quality of Appalachian coal but especially in the environmental and social consequences of stripping. (See, for example, Stacks 1972.)
Appalachian coal is both publicly and privately owned. On public lands, environmental impact statements are needed. When mining on the Jefferson National Forest (Virginia) was halted by public intervention, pressure was shifted to private lands where environmental controls are less stringent. Inspections of such mines now occur less than every 45 days. New laws (e.g., P.L. 95-87, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1972) have been created, but over 15 law suits against the law and new regulations associated with them are pending.
As we have said, coal is not necessarily coal. It changes in definition with price. What could not formerly be taken profitably (and therefore abandoned) under new prices can now be mined. We found this on one of our research study sites. An abandoned mine was reworked following a drastic local coal price increase in 1976. The mine then no longer fell under the abandoned mine grandfather clause but under the post-1966 mining laws requiring reclamation. Some questions, yet unresolved, are whether all abandoned mines are hidden bank accounts due to limited technology and inefficiences during their extraction. If so, extensive reclamation may not be warranted. Delays in reclamation are similarly unwarranted.
Should public funds be incurred in reclamation? This is easy to answer for the abandoned mine sites. The more difficult question is whether reclamation costs should be borne by the public or the landowner-operator. Limited taxes on coal now provide for some reclamation work and support a regulatory agency. Where public funds are used to reclaim abandoned surface mines on private lands, should the public have no access rights, such as hunting and fishing, or . are all the costs to be borne by the public -- the social and environmental costs of the abandoned mine and the costs of its reclamation?
Can appropriate controls be exercised on reclamation work, given the attitudes and history associated with such work? For example, in Kentucky in 1971, time enough after the 1966 legislation for reclamation to be in full swing, there were violations of 45.6, 44.6 and 24.6 per 100 inspections in three areas (Landy 1976:254). Given the low rate of inspection, the subjectivity of many criteria, and the potential pressures that can be put on inspectors, it appears controls will be very difficult without education, incentives, and penalties, all massive, to change attitudes toward and practices on the land.
Should a public reclamation strategy be to improve the region, supporting and stabilizing relevant reclamation industries, and creating high-value multipleuse land surfaces, or should it be simple, on-site, minimum erosion control and land stabilization? Should a major hunting and fishing recreational opportunity be created or should wildlife be considered the normal sequel to and adjuncts of any revegetation effort? Perhaps more extreme, but fully as reasonable, is the question: Rather than spend $10 million on patchwork reclamation, is it not possible to reshape or restructu re an entire area for the same amount of money and in doing so produce acreage suitable for agriculture, livestock, residence, and industrial sites? The energy costs of reclamation are enormous. The question is: Can we not use these resources to shape and form stable, highly-efficient, properly-sloped-and-oriented photosynthetic surfaces (e. g., a hayfield) for the future? Given finite limits on fossil fuels, the driving questions from a knowledge of energetics is: How shall we use the last of the limited, concentrated energy available in coal to efficiently captu re as much solar energy as is possible for doing human work? We think the answers lie in how the land surface on and near strip mines is reshaped relative to insolation present during the growing season. The answer is in creating a new agrarian base for a future society that must be more energy self-sufficient than at present.
These questions are raised, not for fun or for intellectual stimulation. They are the essence of the goal-environment in which a prescriptive system for strip mine reclamation was created (See Giles 1978). In part, this is a complaint, but mostly it is a problem analysis and an effort to direct thought, debate, and policy formulation within planning groups, the state, national agencies, and legislators. The questions have only begun to be realized. They have been hidden in the cheap-energy past. That is behind us now, and the hard questions are becoming clear.
The reason that answers must be produced, at least the best temporary ones possible, is that it is impossible to design any system to achieve unspecified goals. It is impossible to guide a complex system without a destination and limitations. We have rejected su rrendering to the inexorable workings of a system that is clearly out of control. We have rejected muddling through. The only alternative we see is to design computer systems and related agencies and patterns of operation to achieve perceived goals and objectives. We emphasize "perceived" because we are aware of our own inability to, or weakness in, formulating goals and objectives, quantifying needs relative to wants, assigning risks, and estimating suitable times and sequences for these goals to be met. Nevertheless, we think that by operating on the basis of thoughtful perception, goals can be estimated and work can begin.
"To begin" is to recognize a type of dynamic insecurity. It is to adopt a philosophy of the tenaciously tentative. It embodies a concept of the general system with its dominant member, feedback. We believe that it is wise to embark on a multi-layered, many-faceted approach to solving national and world energy problems. We think it is reasonable to recognize great uncertainties and their interactions and to be sure that we spend no more on data collection or analysis than is justified by such uncertainties. We think an approximate system for prescribing how to reclaim abandoned surface mines can be created but we insist upon an answer, sometime, by someone, to the questions "for whom, for achieving what goals, within what environment?" These questions are not scientific but are to be answered by the people. Until they are answered, no prescriptive system can be judged good or bad. Until they are specified, there is little hope that the results of their use will match the environment with human needs. That close match is the dominant criterion of success.
LITERATURE CITED
Abelson, P. H . 1973. Underground gasification of coal. Science 182: Editorial.
Abelson, P. H. Editorial. 1976. National paralysis on energy. Science 194(4262):
Alich, J. A., Jr. and R. E. Inman. 1973. Effective utilization of solar energy to produce clean fuel. Prepared by Stanford Research Inst. for N.S.F. 161 pp.
Anon. 1976. Coal to the rescue? No one really knows. Conservation Foundation Letter, September, 8 pp.
Axtmann, R. C. 1975.Envi ronmental impact of a geothermal power plant. Science 187: 795-803.
Barnes, P. 1971. Oil everywhere: how to play monopoly.New Republic, Nov. 6: 21-23.
Beck, E. J. 1975. Ocean thermal gradient hydraulic power plant. Science189: 293-294.
Bennethum, G., and L. C. Lee. 1976(?). Is our account overdrawn? Mining Congress Jour., Reprint, Amer. Mining Congress, 1100 Ring Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Bowman, G. A. 1976. Land use: issues and research needs for planning, policy and allocation. Taskface, National Planning Committee, Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. College of Agric., Washington State Univ., Pullman. 79 pp.
Brocking, R. C. 1973. The plan to drain the Yukon and other modest proposals. The Living Wilderness (Winter): 13-24.
Carter, L. J. 1978. Sweetness and light from industry and environmentalists on coal. Science 199: 958-959.
Cheney, E. S. 1974. U.S. energy resources:limits and future outlook. Amer. Scientist 62: 14-22.
Committee 17, Envi ronmental Mutagen Society. 1975. Environmental mutagenic hazards. Science 187: 503-514.
Corley, K. O. 1975. Coal price regulation [Letters]. Science 188: 886.
Dole, H. M. 1972.Energy needs and outlook for America.J. Forestry 70:668-670.
Dunham, J. T., C. Rampacek, and T. A. Henrie.1974.High sulfur coal for generating electricity. Science 184: 346-351.
Eisenbud, M., and G. Gleason (Eds.) 1970. Electric power and thermal discharges: thermal considerations in the production of energy, a symposium. Gordon and Breach, New York, N. Y. xxxii + 424 pp.
Ford Foundation, 1974. The art of managing the environment. The Ford Found., New York, N.Y., 42 pp.
Forrester, J. W.1969.Urban dynamics.The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. xiii + 285 pp.
Garvey, J. R. 1971. Coal as a resource--now and in the future. p.1 in F. Schmidt (ed.) Symposium on Coal and Public Policies. Center for Business and Econ. Research, College of Business Admin., Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville, Publ. 170 pp.
Gesell, T. F. and J. A. S. Adams. 1975. Geothermal power plants: environmental impacts [Letters]. Science 189: 328.
Giles, R. H. 1978. Mine-1: a decision-aid system for abandoned strip mine reclamation. Final report of a Research Project. Sponsored by Office of Biological Services, FWS, USDI, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, Va. 171 p. + appendices.
Gillette, R. 1974. Oil and gas resources:did USGS gush too high? Science185: 127-130.
Gillette, R. 1975. Laser fusion: an energy option, but weapons simulation is first. Science 188: 30-34.
Gilluly, R. H. 1970. Earth's heat: a new power source.Science News (November 28): 415-416.
Gofman, J. W. and A. R. Tamplin. 1971. Poisoned power: the case against nuclear power plants. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Penn. 368 pp.
Gough, C. and B. J. Eastlund. 1971. The prospects of fusion power. Scientific American 224(2): 50-64.
Grantham, J. B. and T. H. Ellis.1974. Potentials of wood for producing energy. J. For. 72: 552-556.
Grim, E. C. and R. D. Hill. 1974. Environmental protection in surface mining of coal. Natl. Environ. Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 277 pp.
Griswold, W. S. 1958. Will your next house get its heat from the sun? Popular Science, February: 110-113.
Hammond, A. L. 1971. Solar energy: a feasible source of power? Science 172: 660.
Hammond, A. L. 1972. Energy options: challenge for the future. Science 177: 875-876.
Hammond, A. L. 1972. Solar energy: the largest resource. Science 177:1088-1090.
Hammond, A. L. 1972. Conservation of energy: the potential for more efficient use. Science 178: 1079-1081.
Hammond, A. L. 1972. Energy needs: projected demands and how to reduce them. Science 178: 1186-1188.
Hammond, A. L. 1974. Academy says energy self-sufficiency unlikely. Science 184: 964.
Hammond, A. L. 1974. Solar power: promising new developments. Science 184: 1359-1360.
Hammond, A. L. 1975. Solar energy reconsidered: ERDA sees bright future. Science 189: 538-539
Hammond, R. P. 1974. Nuclear power risks. Amer. Scientist 62: 155-160.
Hayes, D. 1975.Solar power in the Middle East [Editorial].Science 188:1261.
Hirst, E. and R. Herendeen. 1972. A diet guide for chronic energy consumers. Saturday Review, October 28: 64-66.
Holcomb, R. W.1970. Power generation: the next 30 years. Science 167:159-160.
Jones, L. W. 1971. Liquid hydrogen as a fuel of the future. Science 174(4007) : 367-370.
Landy, M. K. 1976. Politics of environmental reform: Controlling Kentucky strip mining. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Lapp, R. E. 1971. Nixon on energy. New Republic, June 26: 14-15.
Lear, J. 1970. Clean power from inside the earth. Satu rday Review, December 5: 53-61.
Lessing, L. 1969. Power from the earth's own heat. Fortune, June: 138 -141 .
Lewis, R. S. 1972. The nuclear power rebellion: citizens vs. the atomic industrial establishment. Viking Press, New York, N. Y. 313 pp.
Manners, G. 1964. The geography of energy. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, pp. 91-115,148-57.
Mathews, D. 1977. Conserving today's energy for tomorrow's needs. Exxon,USA 16(4): 27-31.
Maugh, T. H.II.1972. Fuel from waste: a minor energy source.Science 178: 599-602.
McManus, I. 1973. Nuclear energy and the environment: an interview with AEC Chairman Dixy Lee Ray. Amer. For. 79(8): 12-15,42-47.
Metz, W. D. 1973. Ocean temperature gradients: solar power from the sea. Science 180: 1266-1267.
Metz, W. D. 1974. Laser fusion secrecy lifted: microballoons are the trick. Science 186: 519.
Metz, W. D. 1975. Energy conservation: better living through thermodynamics. Science 188: 820-821.
Meyer, R. 1974. Developing western energy reserves. An address to the Federation of Rocky Mountain States, East Glacier Park, Mont., Sept 4. Exxon Co., Public Affairs Dept., Houston, Texas.
Miller, A. 1973. The energy crisis as a coal miner sees it. Center Mag., Nov-Dec: 35-45.
Mullen, R. K. 1975. Methanol-gasoline fuels [letter]. Science 188: 209-210.
Norman, R. S. 1974.Water salination: a source of energy.Science 186: 350-352.
Norman, R. S. 1975. Osmotic power plants. Science 189: 654-655.
Odum, E. P. and H. T. Odum 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of man's total environment. Trans. N. Amer. and Natl. Res. Conf. 37: 178-189.
Osborn, E. F. 1974. Coal and the present energy situation. Science 183: 477-481.
Othmer, D. F. and O. A. Roels. 1973. Power, fresh water, and food from cold, deep sea water. Science 182: 121-125.
Otte, R. C. 1973. Human considerations in land use, p. 68-85 in National land use policy: objectives, components, implementation. Proc. of a Conf. Soil Cons. Soc. of Amer., Ankeny, Iowa 220 pp.
Peterson, E. W. 1974. Wind power [ letter] . Science 185: 480.
Post, R. F. and F. L. Ribe. 1974. Fusion reactors as future energy sources. Science 186: 397-407.
Putnam, P. 1953. Energy in the future. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York.
Reed, T. B. and R. M. Lerner. 1973. Methanol: a versatile fuel for immediate use. Science 182: 1299-1304.
Rose, D. J. 1971. Controlled nuclear fusion: status and outlook. Science172: 797-808.
Rose, D. W.1975. Fuel forest versus strip-mining. J. For. 73(8): 489-493.
Schanz, J. J. Jr. 1978. Oil and gas resources - welcome to uncertainty. Resources no. 58, (Resources for the Future, Washing,ton D.C.) 16pp.
Sorensen, B. 1975.Energy and resources.Science 189: 255-260.
Squires, A. M. 1974. Clean fuels from coal gasification. Science 184:340-346.
Stacks, J. F. .1972.Stripping.Sierra Club, San Francisco, Calif., 140p.
Starr, C. 1971. Energy and power. Sci. Amer. 225(3): 37-49.
Suderland, J. E. 1975. Cost of fuel [Letters]. Science 188: 204.
Subcommittee on Energy. 1973. Energy facts. Serial H, a report for the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Rep., 93 Congress, 539pp.
Time.Apr. 18, 1977.
Time. Apr. 17, 1978.
Wade, N. 1974. Windmills: the resu rrection of an ancient energy technology. Science 184: 1055-1058.
Walsh, J.1974. Problems of expanding coal production. Science 184: 336-339.
Watt, K. E. F. 1973. Principles of environmental science. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. xiv + 319 pp.
Watt, K. E. F. 1973. The watershed: an example of multiple use and conflicting demands, p.190-198 in Principles of environmental science, McGraw-Hili Book Co., New York, xiv + 319 p.
White, D. E. and D. L. Williams (Eds). 1975. Assessment of geothermal resources of the United States - 1975. Geol. Survey Circ. 726, Washington, D.C.
Widner, R. R. 1971. Current and emerging policies for the extraction, shipment and use of Appalachian coal. p. 85-100 in F. Schmidt (ed.) Symposium on Coal and Public Policies. Center for-Business and Econ. Research, College of Business Admin., Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville, Publ. 170?
Williams, J. R. 1974. Solar energy: technology and applications. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich. 120 pp.
Winsche, W. E., K. C. Hoffman, and F. J. Salzano. 1973. Hydrogen: its future role in the nation's energy economy. Science 180: 1325-1332.
Wolff, A.1972. Showdown at Four Corners. Saturday Rev., June: 29-34.
Zener, C. and J. Fetkovich. 1975. Foam solar sea power plant. Science 189:294-295.
Perhaps you will share ideas with me about some of the topic(s) above .
Home
Rural System
Glossary
Robert H. Giles, Jr.
Februrary 7, 2007