ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
ROBERT W. FRI
Acting Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
430R73002
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Robert W. Fri
Acting Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Americans are far and away the most energy intensive
society in the world, accounting for more than one-third
of total energy consumption while representing only about
six percent of the world's population. Our hard-working
energy servants have made us the most productive and
affluent people on Earth, and we like these servants so
well we get more all the time. Thirty years ago
Buckminster Fuller estimated that the average American
had at his beck and call the equivalent of 153 slaves.
Today that number would be about 400.
Americans use 70 quadrillion Btu's of energy every
year. That's the equivalent of 2.8 billion tons of coal,
or 616 billion gallons of oil, or 70 trillion cubic feet
of gas. These are impressive figures, but they're really
i ncomprehensi ble.
To put it into one frame of reference -- 2.8 billion
tons of coal is a string of 100-ton railroad hopper cars
265,000 miles long; and the mean distance to the moon is
only 240,000 miles.
Aerospace Industries Association, Wi 1 1 i amsburg , Va. ,
May 23, 1973
-------
Or try this -- the 6LOBTICK TOKYO, at 477,000 deadweight
tons, is the largest supertanker now in service. Depending
on cargo density, this ship can carry about 180 million
gallons. If we had to import all our energy needs by
tanker, nine of these mammouth vessels would have to be
offloaded every single day -- nearly 3,400 ships a year.
We have become so accustomed to energy in its various
forms that we take it for granted. Reportedly, a schoolboy
when asked to name Edison's greatest achievement, replied:
"Without Edison we'd have to watch television by candlelight."
That's an ingenuous response to be sure but it typifies
a general attitude. We have been so prodigal in our energy
habits for so long that very few people give more than
scant thought to energy sources and the complexities
involved in making that energy available for our use.
We1 re numb to what making this much energy means.
How many people translate household electricity into
strings of coal hopper cars or strip-mined hillsides?
How many people realize that the gas which flames beneath
the morning coffee pot may have left a well far out into
the Gulf of Mexico days beforehand? What motorist,
-------
refueling at the neighborhood service station, thinks of
tankers and refineries, pipelines and oil spills?
Yet, as an environmentalist, I want energy, too.
Energy is a vital component in our environmental
rehabilitation program, as well as to our efforts to bring
the full measure of prosperity to all Americans. The problem
is not what we want, but how we get it. How can we satisfy
a reasonable demand for energy, and keep our environment
whole and healthy, too? In a sense, the answer to that
question is plain. We will have to produce more and
waste less. These are not options -- we must do both.
For Americans energy needs today are supplied
overwhelmingly by fossil fuels, with oil and gas providing
77 percent. There a
-------
high-energy culture. But if we are to maintain our
nigh standard of living and preserve our environment
as well- we must look to other power sources for the
lona term. And we must develop these sources while we
still have fossil fuels available to provide the energy
required for further breakthroughs.
The National Science Foundation estimated that the
United States could have 395 million kilowatts of
geothermal electric generating capacity by the year 2000.
That's more than today's total capacity.
We are working on breeder reactors which are
perpetual power systems but they must contend with problems
of radiation and disposition of soent fuel elements.
And we have barely begun our search for ways tn use our
largest nuclear power source -- the Sun itself. NASA is
studying the feasibility of an orbiting satellite to
collect and convert sunlight into electricity and beam it
by microwave to Earth.
There is much work to be done and, to buy the time
we need, it is imperative that we make the wisest use of
our existing fossil fuel resources. The trick is to get us
-------
safely into the 1980's with known technology. To
accomplish this in ways which are least harmful to the
environment will demand judicious evaluation and balancing
of the environmental complexities in the whole energy chain--
exploration, production, processing, transportation, and
consumpti on.
There is no perfect solution. The energy situation is
replete with bittersweet alternatives. Our greatest fossil
fuel resource is coal -- but most of it has a high sulfur
content. The ideal fuel is natural gas -- but it's the fuel
in shortest supply. There are large reserves of oil and
gas in Alaska's North Slope area -- but there is the permafrost,
earth faults and the North Pacific.
Nearly everyone agrees that refineries and deepwater ports
must be built -- just build them somewhere else. On the
whole, offshore drilling holds great promise -- but this or
that particular shoreline must be exempt. A nuclear
power plant-seems like a great solution -- but don't build
it too close to home. And so goes the energy thrust and
environmental parry of our fragmented way of developing
new energy sources.
-------
At a time which demands dispassionate analysis and
sound judgement we seem, instead, to be getting escalated
psychological warfare. People in the oil and gas states
blame consumers in the Northeast for low fuel prices.
A bumper strip in Louisiana reads: "Let the bastards
freeze!" In Oklahoma they've added: "And in the dark, too!
When a trade group touts: "A nation that runs on oil can't
afford to run short"; an environmentalist counters with:
"A nation that runs short can't afford to run on oil."
We simply can't afford the luxury of automatic
opposition, whether it be industry opposition to
environmental regulation or environmental opposition to *
energy development. Such behavior only leads to conflicts
which delay decisions, often for so long a period of time
that the ultimate decision must be made between poorer
alternatives than were available in the first instance.
It is extremely difficult to weigh the environmental
impacts of energy facilities against the benefits of
energy use. And this is especially true where, as in most
instances, the people who are adversely affected are not the
same people who benefit.
-------
In this context it is important to appreciate fully
that as the United States is not a self-sufficient nation,
no city, no state, no region within the country can go it
alcfne. The benefits one area provides to others at some
environmental cost are recompensed by benefits supplied
to it from outside at environmental costs to others.
V
It is, therefore, just and prudent to make our environmental
decisions on the basis of the society as a whole". The
problem is doing it.
It is relatively easy to determine the environmental
impact of each link in the energy chain; it is much harder
to determine which of these impacts is the most serious.
Which is the greater risk -- a coastal oil spill or an
inland health hazard? Which is more disruptive -- a power
brownout or gasoline rationing? Forced to a choice, which
is more valuable -- clean air or clean water?
But hard as it is, we must incorporate rational
consideration of tradeoffs into our decision making process,
generate as many of the relevant facts as possible, carefully
analyze the alternatives, debate them responsibly, and come
to reasoned judgments as to the best choice for society.
We -- all of us -- must learn to advocate energy programs that
best solve the twin problems of power and pollution.
-------
8
In his energy message last month President Nixon
specifically provided for environmental assessment
of each proposed new energy source. This was a call to
reason; not a signal to choose sides. There is room for
give and take on energy matters -- and there is a need.
The clean fuels problem is an excellent case in point.
The Clean Air Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency
to set air quality standards which protect the public's
health and welfare. Primary standards -- those intended to
protect public health -- are to be met by 1975. The secondary
standards -- those relating to the public's welfare -- do not
have a precise target deadline but are to be achieved within
a reasonable period of time.
For stationary sources -- electric generating stations,
industrial plants, office buildings, stores and residences --
the main problem lies in achieving the sulfur oxide standards.
The problem is resolved by burning low sulfur fuels in
the first instance or by removing sulfur from stack gases
where high sulfur fuel is burned. The pinch comes because
there will not be sufficient clean fuel in 1975 to do the
job and there will not be enough desulfurization or
stack gas cleaning facilities to make up the difference.
-------
Our studies indicate that by 1975 power plants alone
will need 600 million tons of coal, more than 1.2 billion
barrels of oil and about 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Analysis of state regulations shows that roughly three-quarters
of this coal and five-sixths of the oil must meet stringent
sulfur content limits if the clean air standards are to be met.
But strict enforcement of all state sulfur regulations
in 1975 will create a clean fuel gap of 100 million tons of
coal. We would just not be able to use one-sixth of the
coal we would need to meet energy demands. In the process,
we would put some 15 to 20 thousand miners out of work.
And what would replace this coal?
It is not in this nation's best interest to rely
heavily on natural gas to meet industrial environmental
requirements. As a boiler fuel, gas is better suited to
serve smaller users -- residential and commercial customers --
since sulfur removal equipment is most efficient and
economical in large scale operations.
And oil is clearly the most expensive alternative to
solve the sulfur problem. In addition to the higher cost
per Btu,the probable need to increase oil imports would
-------
10
adversely affect our balance of payments. Furthermore,
in view of our recent problems with refining capacity and
the world supply of crude oil, it is not at all clear that
we can depend on large scale oil imports to solve our
problems even if we wanted to.
So we must use our coal reserves to meet-our energy needs
And we must attain the primary, or health-related, air
standards. We have written the Governors of the key coal-
using states urging them to modify state plans as necessary
to insure that national air quality health needs are met
first. If these states modify their plans, the available
clean coal and limited supplies of coal and limited supplies
of coal stack-gas cleaning technology can be used in the
most polluted areas and the primary standards can be met.
This amounts to a policy of phasing-in secondary standards
which would probably be achieved in all states by 1977 or
by 1978. But it is a policy that allows us to have clean
air and adequate energy -- both by narrow but reliable margins
in this decade.
If this policy is implemented , and if energy producers
and consumers act in good faith to solve their own problems,
we must still go through a complicated transition period
-------
11
between now and 1975. We must, for example, physically
redistribute clean fuel supplies to where they are needed.
During this transition, some spot shortages of clean fuels
may occur. But if these shortages are legitimate, and are
prepared to tolerate short-term spot variances from
environmental regulations. Thus, our clean fuels policy
and our variance policy go hand-in-glove to produce the
result we all want by 1975.
This is a carefully crafted solution to a very complex
problem. How easy it would be to listen to the simplistic
call to abandon environmental health in favor of
unconstrained energy production. But our answer offers
the only prospect of achieving our environmental goals in
a way which minimize dislocations in our energy situation
and the costs to the consumer.
Can we do it? Yes, it is legally permissible and
physically possible. Will we do it? Will the states extend
the dates for meeting secondary standards? Will users
voluntarily redistribute low-sulfur fuels to the areas
where is most necessary? To these last questions I must
confess that I just don't know. It seems naive to say
"yes" and cynical to say "no."
-------
12
I do know that if it is not done voluntarily Congress
will be faced with two unpleasant options. -- to relax the
Clean Air Act or to give some Federal agency authority to
allocate scarce fuel supplies to meet the Act's requirements.
We intend to be vigorous in urging other Federal agencies
and the Congress to adopt energy policies which will
stimulate production of needed clean fuels and insure their
availability where most needed-
But there are two ways of closing the energy gap --
producing more and wasting less. Until the day comes when
we can afford to be as extravagant with energy as we actually
are today, we must take steps to conserve it. We need not
docilely accept a seven percent per year growth in
energy demand.
We are energy grasshoppers, living for today without a
thought for tomorrow. We consume our energy nearly as fast
as we produce it. Any significant slow-down in production
or delivery forces curtailments such as those we witnessed
1ast wi nter.
One-half of every barrel of domestic crude oil goes for
gasoline to power automobiles and trucks, very convenient
but inefficient vehicles. We have let our rail passenger
-------
13
and transit systems fall apart. Airliners, on the average,
fill only half their seats. In intercity freight transportation
railroads carry one-half of the tonnage at one-tenth of the
total fuel consumption. Nine times as much energy is used
by trucks to move the other half of the tonnage.
We can't make more fossil fuels but we can extend
the useful lifetimes of what we have. Last year the
Office of Emergency Preparedness released a study on
energy conservation. The most significant suggestions
were improved home insulation, more efficient air conditioning,
streamlined industrial processes and equipment, and
four transportation improvements:
-- shifting intercity freight from highway to rail;
-- shifting intercity passengers from air to ground;
-- shifting urban passengers from autos to mass transit; and
-- consolidating urban freight movement.
The environmental ethic for energy is not quite
"wajte not, want not" but conservation will carry us a
long way. If we undertake a coordinated program we can
reduce energy use by up to 20 percent without impairing
our standard of living. The potential benefits from the
energy savings in the residential and commercial markets
-------
14
are particularly important for pollution control because
most fuel savings will be in natural gas and electricity.
By cutting down on energy demand and with some adroit
juggling of clean fuel supplies we should be able to g-et
through the mid-1970's crunch. For the mid-term -- 1980 into
the 21st Century -- we must develop our present energy
technologies to the optimum. And for the long-term we need
to make wise investments today in research and development
of perpetual power supplies. Estimates of 300 and 400 year
lifespans of fossil fuel reserves may seem like a comfortable
margin but looking over our shoulder that would only take
us back to around the founding of Wi11iarasburg. And that
wasn't so very long ago.
I know that we have the ability to develop and use our
energy wisely. I'm confident that we can and will pull it
all together and come up with a cleaner and even more
prosperous America.
ADN33V NOU.03J.OHd HVJ.NHWNOMIAN3
QlVd SHHH QNV 39VJ.SOd[
GOES 'HSn SAVArHd
ssHNisns
AJ.1VN3d
O9VO3 -O-a 'NOiONIHSVM
ADN3DV NOIID31O*ld 1V1N3WNOJHAN3
------- |