Table Of ContentOther Pergamon Titles of Interest
BLAIR et al Aspects of Energy Conversion
BR ATT Have You Got the Energy ?
DIAMANT Total Energy
HUNT Fission, Fusion and the Energy Crisis
JONES Energy and Housing
KARAM & MORGAN Environmental Impact of Nuclear Power Plants
KARAM & MORGAN Energy and the Environment Cost-Benefit Analysis
KOVACH Technology of Efficient Energy Utilization
MESSEL & BUTLER Solar Energy
MURRAY Nuclear Energy
REAY Industrial Energy Conservation
SIMON Energy Resources
SMITH The Technology of Efficient Electricity Use
MCVEIGH Sun Power, An Introduction to the Applications of Solar Energy
The terms of our inspection copy service apply to all the above books.
Full details of all books listed will gladly be sent upon request.
Energy in an Age of Limited Availability
and Delimited Applicability
PHILIP SPORN
Retired President, American Electric Power System
Member N.AS., N.A.E.
THE ENERGY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION
VISITING PROFESSORSHIP LECTURE
Delivered at Manhattan College,
April 24. 1975
P E R G A M ON P R E SS
Oxford - New York · Toronto · Sydney · Paris · Frankfurt
υ. κ. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 9600, Don Mills
M3C 2T9, Ontario, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary
Street, Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
WEST GERMANY Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
Pferdstrasse 1, Frankfurt-am-Main, West Germany
Copyright © 1976 Philip Sporn
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the publishers
First edition 1976
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sporn, Philip.
Energy in an age of limited availability and delimited applicability
The Energy Educational Foundation visiting professorship lecture,
delivered at Manhattan College, April 24, 1975.
Bibliography: p.
1. Energy policy—United States. 2. Power resources-United States. I. Title.
HD9502.U52S63 1976 333.7 76-26544
ISBN 0-08-020857-6
In order to make this volume available as economically and rapidly as possible the author's type-
script has been reproduced in its original form. This method unfortunately has its typographical
limitations but it is hoped that they in no way distract the reader.
Printed in Great Britain by Express Litho Service
To
SADIE
DEBORAH
A N D R EW
MICHAEL
SARAH
A R T H UR
PEGGY
ROBERT
ABB Y
MICHAEL
KITTE
TOM
PAUL
A C K N O W L E D G M E NT
I am glad to acknowledge and express my appreciation for
the help I received from my secretary, Miss Dorothy Miesse,
both in the editing of the original lecture and in its typing.
viii
ENERGY IN AN AGE OF LIMITED AVAILABILITY
AND DELIMITED APPLICABILITY
I. The Background
When Dr. Zimet invited me to accept one of the professorships under the Emery Visiting
Professorship Program, I was happy to accept after only a brief consideration of what this involved,
not only because of the implied honor but because it also came to me at a time when I felt both
saddened and frustrated at our national indecisiveness in taking action to counter the present energy
crisis.
Now, with the country in the throes of a persistent inflation, with unemployment up
beyond a figure of 8.5% and possibly headed for a double-digit figure, and a recession of serious
proportions crippling the economy, and with a knowledge that all this is adversely influenced by the
energy crisis, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot keep silent, even though my earlier efforts
to be heard aroused no response. In short, I eagerly agreed to deliver this lecture.
It is the thesis of this lecture that the United States refuses to recognize and take
measures against its unprecedented energy crisis which threatens our national safety, economy, and
way of living. It is a further thesis that the plans of the Federal Energy Administration for voluntary
conservation in the use of oil have proven ineffectual and that the supply-demand picture has been
deteriorating so that some sort of decisive action has become imperative. In an item in Science of
January 10, 1975, Robert Gillette said:
As of mid-December, demand for oil had grown to 18 million barrels a day, up a quarter
million barrels or 1.5 percent from the same time last year, just before the full force of the
Arab embargo was felt. In keeping with a normal seasonal pattern, demand since last
September has grown by more than 1 million barrels a day in spite of the President's
1
2
exhortation in October to drive less, turn down the thermostat, and help save a million
barrels a day by late 1975.
Thus, in spite of higher prices and the recession economy, consumption is still creeping up.
A third thesis is that the energy crisis is not the result of an overnight capricious action on
the part of OPEC occasioned by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Rather, it is the result of a long
chain of misguided policies leading to wasteful use of oil and gas and reliance on cheap (for the
moment) foreign oil* rather than developing domestic supplies. Further, the resolution of that crisis
will have to take into consideration the fact that there are clear indications that, as a result of the
liquidation of colonialism and the creation of scores of new underdeveloped national entities, we
may be coming into a new international economic order that will not be consumption- and
market-oriented, but rather resources- and environment-oriented. Translated into energy, this means
lesser availability. This new international order we may be coming into in energy will result not only
from much higher costs of energy, but also from insistent and growing demands of the new nations,
greater ecological restraints, and much more control; it will, therefore, be characterized by
delimited applicability.
In the discussion this afternoon, I propose to present the underlying developments that
have led to my thesis and to lay down a program for living through and surmounting the crisis that
can become in fact a national policy for at least the next 25 years. Thus, I do not propose to
explore whether, if OPEC chose to double the present $10.50 per barrel price, we would be
warranted to take armed measures against such an insupportable price or whether that would be
even more warranted if a long-term embargo on all shipments were to be imposed. The fact is that
armed force has lost most of its former utility and legitimacy. The conclusion is clear: The present
structure of American interests in the world must change eventually for a policy of pacific
interdependence.
The New York Times of January 17, 1974, quotes Secretary Kissinger saying at a Soviet
embassy dinner: "I believe that with all the dislocations we now experience there also exists an
extraordinary opportunity to form for the first time in history a truly global society carried by the
principle of interdependence."
This is a noble objective but, as Robert W. Tucker' has pointed out, the world's
interdependence compels us out of self-interest to reduce present material disparities between the
world's rich and poor. Americans are in favor of more equality - within the confines of the United
States — but the translation of that belief into more international equality — equality among
international states — is going to run into difficulty in the United States, as it will in many of the
other developed states. In the United States the people will draw a sharp line of distinction between
California and Bangladesh and democratic governments will respond to that public distinction. It
thus will take more than a brief period to bring interdependence about. It will take a long time.
Meanwhile we have an energy crisis and as an intermediate policy there has to be
implemented a policy of independence.
* The upsetting of the balance between domestic production and consumption of oil began
approximately in 1945 and developed into a continuing widening gap between the two. By 1973,
domestic production of 10.9 million barrels per day versus a consumption of 17.2 million barrels
per day gave a ratio between the two of .63:1 ; that is, more than one-third of our oil came from
foreign production.
3
II. The World-wide Pervasiveness of the Energy Problem
The energy problem is not confined to this country, but is world-wide. In the period
1968-72, the total energy used by the non-communist countries of the world increased at the rate
of 5.6% per year and the oil use by 7.5%. In the United States in the same period total energy
increased at the rate of 4.2% per year and oil by 5.1%.2
Walter J. Levy has shown^ that, even if recent growth in annual use of total energy by the
non-communist world were reduced to 4.6%, a reasonable scenario would yield an average oil
import of 29 million barrels per day in 1980. Even at present prices, this rate could not be sustained
by the oil-importing countries on a current payments basis and, regardless of payments and the
difficulties they would introduce, the oil probably would not be forthcoming.
This was confirmed at the recent conference on world oil by the Minister of Petroleum
and Resources of Saudi Arabia when he said, "I think when we are discussing oil, we do have two
problems to face - number one, the price of oil, and number two, the availability of oil.
Unfortunately, we are focusing nowadays only on the price of oil and forgetting for a while the
main problem the whole world will face very soon: the availability of oil." 4
To get a balanced situation with the oil-consuming countries adopting a viable but
definitely austerity condition and with the producing countries not to be under pressure to lower
prices or increase production, Mr. Levy calls for a total energy growth in the 1972-80 period of
3.3%. This yields a figure of 18 million barrels of oil for 1980, and an average percentage growth in
Middle East oil for the interval of one-tenth of 1%. Such an austerity policy could in time achieve
some trade balance between the oil-producing and -consuming countries. It is, therefore, an
excellent foundation on which to build the entire program of United States total energy supply and
utilization for the balance of this century.
For a world energy growth figure of 3.3%, the United States figure should be somewhat
lower, certainly not above 3%. Among reasons for this moderate restraint on the part of the United
States in the use of energy available are that: with 6% of the world's population we have for decades
utilized 35% of the total energy; our per capita energy use is six times that of the rest of the world;
our social-economic development is highly advanced; the pollution caused by our enlarged energy
utilization is far greater than that of the rest of the world; and, finally, only by slowdown in the
growth of energy use of countries as highly developed as we are can an acceleration in the growth of
energy and per capita use of energy take place in the underdeveloped countries in the context of
declining energy availability growth.
Analyzing the situation from a slightly different angle, John P. Holdren, in a succinct
paper^ reaches substantially the same conclusion. From it I quote:
No policy or combination of policies can deal successfully with these problems unless it
incorporates as a central element a sharply reduced rate of growth of global energy use.
Overconsumption in the richest countries, and the legitimate needs of the poor countries,
dictate that this reduction be accomplished by the very sharp slowdown in growth of energy
use in the rich countries, where most of the world's total annual use now takes place.
Now it is easily shown that a dramatic slowdown in the growth of energy use in the rich
countries would permit, in principle, an acceleration of the growth of per capita energy use in the
4
poor countries within a context of declining global growth. In this way the wide rich-poor gap in
energy use, which roughly parallels the ethically indefensible and politically unstable rich-poor gap
in well-being, could begin to be narrowed. (Much attention must also be given to the other aspects
of socio-economic development, without which energy alone cannot produce prosperity.) The
slower rate of growth in total global energy use, and the much slower growth in the rich countries
where certain environmental impacts of energy technology are now most severe, would significantly
reduce the grave environmental risks that accompany continuation of past trends.
There is, it is clear to me, no way for us to continue as a great nation except by
continuing as an energy-using nation. But we cannot continue on the energy use trendline we have
been on and on which we would have continued but for the 1973 OPEC embargo. We simply must
make some radical changes in our operations so that energy growth is reduced and energy used more
efficiently and with much greater concern for the environment. We must also give thought to the
ability of the poorer, underdeveloped nations being able to build up their economies without need
for ruinous bidding for declining energy resources.
We have to bring about a condition, in other words, in which needed energy will be
available undisturbed by frequent shortages and sudden jumps in prices such as we have recently
experienced in oil and other fossil fuels.
We have to accept our coming into an age of limited availability and delimited
applicability.
HI. Energy Self-sufficiency Versus Energy Independence
There is currently a good deal of talk about Project Independence. There is also a
considerable amount of talk about energy self-sufficiency and frequently the two concepts are used
interchangeably as if they were synonymous. But they are not. Self-sufficiency is the simpler
concept and means that a nation has at its command entirely from indigenous sources all the energy
its citizens require for carrying out their defense, governmental, industrial, and domestic activities.
No foreign nation or government can interfere in any manner in the availability of that energy
supply.
Independence involves the concept of the ability to operate on an approximate
self-sufficient basis, but with not enough reduction to affect the mainstream of economic activity.
It does not preclude relying to a moderate degree on foreign sources which might be cut off. But
the existence of the status of independence would obviously reduce to a major degree the likelihood
of the withdrawal of such foreign supply. Almost everybody has agreed that Project Independence
is a desirable objective.
As a matter of fact, I would go beyond that last assertion. It seems to me, recognizing the
stark reality of the current crisis and the threat of its continuance to our national life, we must
resolve to bring about the earliest possible completion of Project Independence. To implement that
we must: (a) reduce our rate of growth of energy use, particularly oil, by firm conservation
measures; (b) expand our supplies of oil and gas from indigenous sources by intensified stripper
operations on old wells and drilling of new offshore wells and by conversion, as technology and
economics make feasible, of coal, oil shales, and tar sands to liquids, high-Btu gas, and low-Btu gas;
(c) strengthen the execution of our well-set-up but, temporarily, halting nuclear power programed)
carry out a major expansion of mining and direct burn of coal; (e) carry through a major selective
4
poor countries within a context of declining global growth. In this way the wide rich-poor gap in
energy use, which roughly parallels the ethically indefensible and politically unstable rich-poor gap
in well-being, could begin to be narrowed. (Much attention must also be given to the other aspects
of socio-economic development, without which energy alone cannot produce prosperity.) The
slower rate of growth in total global energy use, and the much slower growth in the rich countries
where certain environmental impacts of energy technology are now most severe, would significantly
reduce the grave environmental risks that accompany continuation of past trends.
There is, it is clear to me, no way for us to continue as a great nation except by
continuing as an energy-using nation. But we cannot continue on the energy use trendline we have
been on and on which we would have continued but for the 1973 OPEC embargo. We simply must
make some radical changes in our operations so that energy growth is reduced and energy used more
efficiently and with much greater concern for the environment. We must also give thought to the
ability of the poorer, underdeveloped nations being able to build up their economies without need
for ruinous bidding for declining energy resources.
We have to bring about a condition, in other words, in which needed energy will be
available undisturbed by frequent shortages and sudden jumps in prices such as we have recently
experienced in oil and other fossil fuels.
We have to accept our coming into an age of limited availability and delimited
applicability.
HI. Energy Self-sufficiency Versus Energy Independence
There is currently a good deal of talk about Project Independence. There is also a
considerable amount of talk about energy self-sufficiency and frequently the two concepts are used
interchangeably as if they were synonymous. But they are not. Self-sufficiency is the simpler
concept and means that a nation has at its command entirely from indigenous sources all the energy
its citizens require for carrying out their defense, governmental, industrial, and domestic activities.
No foreign nation or government can interfere in any manner in the availability of that energy
supply.
Independence involves the concept of the ability to operate on an approximate
self-sufficient basis, but with not enough reduction to affect the mainstream of economic activity.
It does not preclude relying to a moderate degree on foreign sources which might be cut off. But
the existence of the status of independence would obviously reduce to a major degree the likelihood
of the withdrawal of such foreign supply. Almost everybody has agreed that Project Independence
is a desirable objective.
As a matter of fact, I would go beyond that last assertion. It seems to me, recognizing the
stark reality of the current crisis and the threat of its continuance to our national life, we must
resolve to bring about the earliest possible completion of Project Independence. To implement that
we must: (a) reduce our rate of growth of energy use, particularly oil, by firm conservation
measures; (b) expand our supplies of oil and gas from indigenous sources by intensified stripper
operations on old wells and drilling of new offshore wells and by conversion, as technology and
economics make feasible, of coal, oil shales, and tar sands to liquids, high-Btu gas, and low-Btu gas;
(c) strengthen the execution of our well-set-up but, temporarily, halting nuclear power programed)
carry out a major expansion of mining and direct burn of coal; (e) carry through a major selective
