In general, this analysis suggests that for the bulk of our incremental energy supplies during the transition period between now and the next century, we will need to increasingly rely on coal. Although coal is our most abundant fossil fuel energy resource, lasting over 300 years at current consumption rates, government energy policies and environmental ambiguities have severely limited its consumption. While solar and hydro will make increasing contributions, because of our energy delivery infrastructure and transportation demand, we will probably still be heavily dependent on liquid and gaseous fossil fuels as our primary energy source. In general, nuclear's share of energy demand is relatively small and below that of combined hydro/solar in those cases of more aggressive conservation (I2 and II2) — though above it in less aggressive conservation scenarios (III and IV). I should point out that these future scenarios were developed prior to the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, current slowdown in economic growth and soft oil market. Hence, they likely overstate the share of nuclear power in 2010. Other things being equal, this could lead to understating the role of coal, since coal is considered to be the major competitor of nuclear in electricity-generating stations. Which of these energy futures is more likely? A consensus view would probably indicate that cases III2 and IIL{ in which energy conservation increases only gradually, oil prices reach $33 in real terms ($1981), and GNP grows at an average annual rate of 2-3% per year are the more likely. Yet, as a practical matter, they need not be. It strongly depends upon what energy policies the government adopts, the possibilities of technological change, and the resiliency of energy conservation. A recent study by Roger Sant (4) indicated that energy conservation might be quite resilient indeed. Sant found that if a least-cost energy strategy had been followed since 1973 — in essence utilizing existing technology to delivery energy services at the lowest cost to the energy consumer — the level of United States energy services demanded in 1978 would have been about 22% below the level actually existing in that year (4). This 22% is in addition to a 10% increase in primary fuel efficiency that occurred between 1973 and 1978, even with existing government policies and price controls. In addition, 13 percentage points of this 22% would have come from reduced demand for electricity. Stobaugh and Yergin (5) have also concluded that conservation, with expanded use of solar energy, is the energy mix the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==