NOT MANY ALTERNATIVES IN OIL RUNS OUT (8-2003)

In a previous column, I wrote about a theory first 
postulated by Dr. Richard Duncan in 1989 that says 
industrialized civilization will end on or before the year 
2030. The reason for the gloomy prediction is because the 
earth’s supply of oil and natural gas will be all but used 
up by then. And since fossil fuels are used to generate 
most of our electricity, blackouts like the one that hit 
the Northeast will become commonplace, even permanent.

I also noted that if we are to avoid this apocalyptic 
scenario, we must find new sources of electricity-
generating fuel and find it pretty soon. The permanent 
blackouts are scheduled to begin, according to Duncan, 
sometime between 2007 and 2012.

But what are the alternatives to oil and natural gas?

The most abundant fossil fuel that we can use to generate 
electricity is coal. But all the “clean” coal has been 
virtually used up. The only coal remaining contains 
substantial amounts of sulfur, which pollutes the air. 
Scrubbing the exhaust from coal-burning power generation 
plants is extremely expensive.

We might be able to stretch the oil reserves a little if 
cars and trucks could use something else. Fuel cells that 
use hydrogen have gotten a lot of attention lately.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It 
produces a substantial amount of heat when burned and the 
exhaust is nothing but clean water vapor. It sounds like 
the perfect fuel, except for one thing. Almost all the 
hydrogen on Earth is tied up in water molecules. And it 
takes more energy to release the hydrogen from water than 
you get back by burning it.

During the 1970’s oil crisis, some strides were made in 
developing alternative methods of generating electricity. 
These methods included using giant windmills connected to 
turbines, tapping into geothermal energy, and building 
photovoltaic cells that convert light energy into 
electricity.

Although all of these methods will work to produce 
electricity, they are not efficient enough or cost-
effective enough to use on a mass scale. At best, they 
might help to put off the inevitable a few more years.

Then there is nuclear power. It can generate all the 
electricity we will need, but it’s expensive and dangerous. 
And nobody wants a nuclear reactor in his own back yard. 
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that nuclear 
power plants, when they fail, can have catastrophic 
consequences. And then there is the question of what to do 
with all that radioactive waste.

So where does that leave us?

Unfortunately, it means humanity will face some very 
serious energy questions in the coming few years. If it is 
a given that we will run out of an ample supply of oil and 
natural gas, then we will be stuck with using one of the 
more expensive or less desirable alternative fuels to 
generate our electricity. The only other options would be 
either to give up and start burning candles (and give up 
all our other electrical and electronic conveniences), or 
develop a brand new source of energy.

One possibility might be to develop a method of harnessing 
the energy from nuclear fusion. Unlike fission reactions, 
which are utilized in traditional nuclear power plants, 
nuclear fusion generates a far greater amount of energy and 
produces safer and more easily disposable waste products.

Unfortunately, cost-effective fusion reactors are years, if 
not decades, away. Research into usable fusion reactors 
should be accelerated.

In the absence of any new energy technology, we are stuck 
with having to use nuclear fission to generate the bulk of 
our electric power. It’s not a very attractive alternative, 
but unless vast improvements are made in photovoltaic cell 
technology or one of the other electric-generating 
technologies already mentioned, we’ll just have to get used 
to the idea that nuclear power may be humanity’s only 
chance to avoid reliving the Dark Ages.