Essays

A Proposal to Reduce the Global Dependency on Oil

—The Future Creation of Solar Power Satellites—

Have you ever wondered how long cars could keep running on streets, how long air conditioners could keep adjusting the temperatures of our rooms, or how long our bath tubs could be kept full of water? It is hard to imagine the world becoming suddenly at loss of everything that works with the power of energy. However, there is undeniably a limit to the production of the world’s most primary, natural energy source, oil. In fact, the world supply of oil is estimated to last only forty three more years, at the present consumption rate (Boje, 2002). The problem is that the demand for oil is still increasing rapidly when the increase in “operational capacity” of oil is, in comparison, very slow (Angel, 2001). By the time the demand for oil begins to exceed the supply, there will be fewer oil sources left in the Middle East every year, and by the time the foundation of oil finally meets its “physical and geological limits” (Drum, 2004), it may be too late for solutions. As written in the Energy Information Administration Home Page, “since oil is a global market, the relevant measure for the vulnerability (the disruption of Middle East supplies) is … world dependency on Middle East oil. As oil in Iraq reserve is estimated to last a hundred twenty eight point nine years (Boje, 2002), the problem is not that there is too little supply of oil in the world, although that is certainly an important element; the more important problem is the global dependency on oil and its vast consumption rate, which is about “a billion barrels of oil every twelve days” (Ruppert, 2003). Presumably, the three main causes of the global dependency on oil are the disadvantages of using other energy resources, the reluctance of the oil industry to allow the “energy industry transformation” (Boje, 2002), and the lack of domestic laws for energy conservation.

Although there are disadvantages in using oil as the main source of energy, such as its “very limited availability” and “large price swings with the supply and demand” (Gonyeau, 2002), there are disadvantages in using other energy resources as well. For example, the drawbacks of making energy from coal are that coal mining can be very dangerous and burning coal produces large amounts of sulfur and carbon dioxide (Present Available Energy Sources). Nuclear energy is “the environmentally cleanest large source of energy,” but it has “a high risk of unsatisfactory safety standards” and some “unsolved problems of waste management” (Waelde, 2000). Hydroelectric energy can affect migratory fish like salmon and cause damage to flooded or downstream areas, and since most dams available are already made, it will not make much of a future source (Gonyeau, 2002). Wind and solar energy are renewable energy sources, but they are not always available depending on the climate, and they also require expensive equipment (Gonyeau, 2002). Therefore, oil is presently the largest energy source and accounts for forty percent of the world’s total energy supply (Solberg, 2003).

Another cause of the global oil dependency is the reluctance of large oil industries, especially in the United States, to give up their share in the market to alternative sources of energy. According tTuscovid M. Boje’s website, large oil companies elect “oil presidents” by paying them a large amount of money, causing the U.S. government to seek for the Middle East oil supply as their domestic supply runs out rather than to open up for new energy sources. As a result of this oil-obsessed government and industry, the U.S. consumption of oil is twenty million barrels per day (National Energy Information Center, 2003), which is twenty five percent of the global consumption, when the population of the U.S. is only four point six percent of the world population (Boje, 2002). On the other hand, in Europe, “the move to diversify energy sources to enhance security of supply is already well advanced (PM Communications, 2003). For example, gas is becoming increasingly popular in Europe as a clean and efficient source of energy (PM, 2003). Therefore, the total oil demand in Europe per day is fifteen point five million barrels (NEIC, 2003) which is lower than the U.S. as a country.

The third cause of the global oil dependency is the insufficient laws for energy conservation. According to R. Scott Ames’ website, when the petroleum demand had accounted for eighty percent of the total energy demand in Japan in 1973, the first oil shock occurred and created an emergent need to diminish the country’s reliance on petroleum and its products. Thus, in 1975, the Advisory Committee for Energy outlined four guidelines to enhance energy security: find alternative energy sources and diversify Japan’s energy sources, stabilize petroleum supply, promote energy conservation, and facilitate the research and development of new energy sources (Ames, 1996). Furthermore, in 1979, the Energy Conservation Law established standards for energy consumption and “called for increase in energy efficiency in consumer products” (Ames, 1996). Since the dependency on petroleum and emission standards were reduced in this way, when the second oil shock occurred in 1979, although the prices of petroleum went even higher than the first oil shock, it caused less damage to the Japanese economy (Ames, 1996). As a matter of fact, the GDP in Japan increased by fifty seven percent from 1980 to 1991 with relatively small emission of SOx, NOx, and CO2 (Ames, 1996). This shows that it is possible for an economy to grow under “strict environmental protection laws and energy conservation programs” (Ames, 1996). However, in recent years, energy consumption is becoming increasingly difficult to stabilize, ironically due to the economic growth and improved standards of living (AKF Forlaget). Also, since the industrial energy conservation is based on “the apparent cooperation between the government and industry,” as the energy conservation system is recently turning mandatory, such as the requirement to file yearly energy reports, there is “uneasiness on the industrial side” (AKF Forlaget). “However, punishment is still not part of the energy-conservation laws” (AKF Forlaget). With such decreasing effectiveness of energy conservation laws, the consumption of oil in Japan is five point five-eight million barrels per day, which is second to the United States (NEIC, 2003).

In conclusion, the three main causes of global oil dependency are probably the disadvantages of using other energy resources, the reluctance of the oil industry to allow other energy sources to occupy the market, and the lack of effective laws for energy conservation. However, there are chances in turning these causes into solutions— with the advance of technology, the “liberalization” of markets (PM, 2003), and the enforcement of governmental policy. Whether the difficult, complicated problem of global oil dependency can or cannot be solved depends on the efforts of the people of the twenty first century— the people who are tasked to, sooner or later, come up with a practical solution before the oil resource is completely exhausted.

Imagine how great it would be if the rays of sunlight that pour into our windows almost every day could be turned into a source of energy. The electricity made from sunlight could be used in buildings, vehicles or in the streetlamps. It would be even better if the electricity could be used at night or on cloudy days as well. In reality, there is a need to rapidly develop technology and introduce new industrial systems to make that happen. After all “solar electricity costs are tTuscoy, around 30 cents/kWh, which is 2-5 times the average Residential electricity tariffs (Solar Buzz, 2004). With such high costs, it is difficult to increase demand for solar electricity and make it a primary source of energy.

Since one of the main causes of the problem of the global oil dependency is the disadvantages of using other energy sources, by reducing some of those disadvantages, we might be able to ameliorate the problem of oil dependency. While it is probably most effective to reduce the disadvantages of many energy sources so that we could diversify energy sources, I decided to narrow my subject to just one of the potentials— solar energy. My proposal is to invest more in the development of solar power satellites (SPS) since they have the potential of “delivering abundant, low cost, nonpolluting electricity to all the nations of the earth” (Ralph Nansen, 2000).

Solar power satellites are solar power plants in orbit above earth that convert sunlight into electricity and beam it to ground-based receiving stations in the form of microwaves (Mark Prado, 1999). The solar cells on the SPS are fixed to always face the sun so that they can constantly produce electricity from the sunlight, while the moving transmitter antenna on the SPS slowly tracks for the ground-based receiving antenna, also called the rectenna. The transmitter is about one kilometer in diameter (Martin I. Hoffert and Seth D. Potter, 1997), and it converts the electricity made by the solar cells into a radio or microwave beam” (Prado, 1999), and sends it down to the rectenna. The rectenna, which is about ten kilometers in diameter (Hoffert and Potter, 1997), converts the energy it receives from the transmitter back into “regular AC electricity which can then be supplied into tTuscoy’s power lines” (Prado, 1999).

The primary advantage of solar power satellites is that they could be in the sunlight for over 99% of the year” except for “brief periods during the spring and fall equinoxes” (Ralph Nansen, 2000). In space, the sun shines 24 hours a day, regardless of the time of day or the season on earth, as if it were always noontime at the equator (Prado, 1999). This deletes the disadvantage of ground-based solar energy, which requires “extra generating capacity and storage” for our nighttime needs and are vulnerable to cloudy days when the sunlight gets blocked (Prado, 1999). Solar power satellites have the potential of stabilizing the production of vast solar electricity.

Another advantage of solar power satellites is the global distribution of energy. Unlike fuels which are limited to a few highly productive areas, solar energy could be delivered to any nation on earth by the SPS (Nansen, 2000). Thus, there will be less “international trade imbalance,” yet SPS could still be subject to competition, for any nation that develops technology for more effective SPS could dominate the world economy (Nansen, 2000). SPS could create a new business with all nations under almost equal conditions. Also, SPS could facilitate the delivery of energy to developing countries (Leonard David, 2000). Instead of spending billions to electrify the whole continent of Africa with the traditional power grid, SPS can simply beam power to necessary markets (David, 2000).

The development of solar power satellites is beneficial compared to the development of other energy sources because the electricity produced by SPS is environmentally clean and inexhaustible. Fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal are not only limited in supply, but the combustion of these fuels can cause the emission of carbon dioxide which can lead to global warming (Seth Potter, 1998). Although nuclear power does not produce “greenhouse gas,” the problem of nuclear proliferation and nuclear waste disposal still remains (NASA, 1997). Electricity produced by solar power satellites, on the other hand, is nonpolluting and apparently safe and limitless.

While conservation of energy is very important, it is not as effective a solution to oil dependency as the solar power satellites are. There is certainly a limit to how much people are willing to give up their presently convenient lifestyles. Conservation was easily accomplished during the oil shocks in the 1970s with the increased oil prices, but in turn, it directly affected the public (Texas Tech University, 1997). Such direct affect on the public could bring great public opposition and dissatisfaction. Therefore, conservation is not the final solution but is only a temporary fix to the ever-increasing problem (Texas Tech University, 1997). Instead of compulsory energy conservation, deriving power from space might be the final solution. When non-renewable energy sources get increasingly diminished on earth, people might think the ideal system of gaining alternative energy is to launch SPS into space so that they would always beam solar energy into earth territories.

However, although the solar power satellites are advantageous in many ways, the eye-popping costs of launching satellites into space and the immature technology of delivering energy from space into terrestrial markets are presently the major drawbacks of the plan. Current launch costs are about ten thousand dollars per kilogram (Arthur P. Smith, 2003). According to the Washington think tank called Resources for the Future, until these launch costs go down, “it is too early for the U.S. government to commit to related loan guarantees or tax incentives” (Leonard David, 2000). However, there are many other investments that could be made until then. For example, NASA spends annually 22 million dollars on the research of SPS (Canizares, 2000). Ralph Nansen, president of the Solar Space Industries, suggest that a ground test program should be funded by the government at a funding level of 30 million dollars per year for three years to demonstrate to the commercial community the viability of the SPS system. “The cost will be repaid by the revenue generated by the satellite” (Nansen, 2000). As for technology, it is certainly true that microwave power transmission and large scale solar arrays in space are generally considered to be difficult (Nagamoto, Sasaki, Naruo, 1994). However, according to a report made by the National Research Council, improvements have been seen in the efficiency of solar cells and the production of lightweight solar panels, and “wireless power transmission tests on Earth are progressing, specifically in Japan and Canada” (David, 2001). Instead of spending one hundred and thirty billion dollars on oil and gas exploration (Smith, 2003), there should be more investments made in the technology of SPS, since it has the great possibility to replace oil and become a reliable energy source. With investments made initially by the governments and gradually more by the industry and private institutions, the technology of SPS could be greatly developed, and the costs of it could be reduced as well. For example, if SPS could be made of lighter material while producing the same amount of electricity, the launch cost per kilogram wouldn’t be as much of a burden as it is now (Smith, 2003). In this way, the two obstacles of cost and technology are linked together and further investment is the key to overcome them both.

In addition to cost and technology, health or environmental hazards caused by the microwave beams broadcast from space also appear worrisome (David, 2001). According to resources, the microwaves from the SPS are in the same radio frequency range “at which many cell phone services operate” (Moffett Field, 2002). So far, no non-thermal heath effects of low-level microwave exposure have been proven (Seth Potter, 1998), and scientist Jay Skiles of NASA Ames Research Center, who is studying the effect of weak microwave beams on alfalfa plants, has stated his hypothesis that “the plants exposed to microwaves will be no different form those plants that are not exposed to microwaves” (Field, 2002). Therefore, it can be inferred that the microwave beams radiated by the SPS are virtually harmless to the plants and animals.

In conclusion, solar power satellites are advantageous in that they can stay under sunlight 99% of the day and stabilize the solar electricity production, make equal global distribution possible and provide limitless, clean electricity to the earth. Unlike conservation, it has the potential of becoming the final solution to the exhaustion of non-renewable energy sources in the long run. Although the cost and technology are the two major drawbacks to this plan, more investment in SPS could promote the improvement in both factors. The safety of microwave beams is also a subject of concern, but science has proven that they are virtually harmless to living things. In the present estimation, a complete solar power satellite system may not emerge until 2025 to 2035 (Mankins), but when the system does come into effect (hopefully, as soon as possible), it could become a major energy source to the world (Canizares, 2000). Since about 42% of primary energy (oil, natural gas, coal) is used to generate electricity (Wolf at the Door, 2004), this additional supply of vast solar electricity would effectively ameliorate the problem of global oil dependency. Development of solar power satellites is certainly worth the high cost, since solar power satellites might save people from the crisis of suddenly becoming unable to live in their modern, convenient lifestyles.

Works Cited

Ames, R Scott. “GHG Abatement.” 1996. Colby College. 11 Oct. 2004.

Angel, Johnny. “It’s the Oil, Stupid.” LA Weekly. 8 Oct. 2001. Alternet. 6 Oct. 2004.

Boje, David M.. “Oil and Empire: Say No to the Oil War.” 2 Oct. 2002. Revised on 13 Feb. 2003. Festivalism. 6 Oct. 2004.

Canizares, Alex. “Solar Satellites Will Power Earth, Scientists Say.” 8 Sept. 2000. Imaginova Corp. 5 Nov. 2004.

Commercial Space Transportation Study: 3.8 Space Utility. 4 Jan. 1997. NASA. 4 Nov. 2004.

David, Leonard. “Space Power for an Energy-Hungry Earth?” 21 Apr. 2000. Imaginova Corp. 5 Nov. 2004.

David, Leonard. “Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites.” 17 Oct. 2001. Imaginove Corp. 5 Nov. 2004.

Drum, Kevin. “More on Oil.” Political Animal. 4 Jun. 2004. Washington Monthly. 6 Oct. 2004.

Energy Information Administration. Trade. 6 Oct. 2004.

Field, Moffett. “NASA to Test Microwave Effects on Plant Growth.” 3 May 2002. Space Daily (Your Portal to Space). 9 Nov. 2004.

Gonyeau Joseph P.E.. “Comparisons of Various Energy Sources.” The Virtual Nuclear Tourist. Revised on 24 Jun. 2002. 8 Oct. 2004.

“Global Gas Reporting.” 2 Feb. 2003. PM Communications. 9 Oct. 2004.

Ground-based Energy Storage. 10 Dec. 1997. Texas Tech University. 9 Nov. 2004.

Hoffert, Martin I. and Seth D. Potter. “Beam it Down: How the New Satellites Can Power the World.” Oct. 1997. Space Future. 23 Nov. 2004.

Kraemer, Trine Pipi and Morten Grauballe. “Energy Policy Instruments.” AKF Forlaget. 11 Oct. 2004.

Nagamoto, Makoto, Susumu Sasaki and Yoshihiro Naruo. “Conceptual Study of a Solare Power Satellite, SPS 2000.” May 1994. Space Future. 9 Nov. 2004.

Nansen, Ralph. “Testimony of Ralph Nansen before House Science Committee Hearings on Solar Power Satellites.” 7 Sept. 2000. Space Ref Interactive Inc. 30 Oct. 2004.

Oil Products. 31 Jul. 2004. Wolf at the Door. 9 Nov. 2004.

Potter, Seth D. Webpage by Brown, Rich. “Solar Power Satellites: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” 27 Dec. 1998. FreeMars Org. 4 Nov. 2004.

Prado, Mark. “The Solar Power Satellite (SPS) Concept.” 1983-2002. PERMANENT. 4 Nov. 2004.

Present Available Energy Sources. 8 Oct. 2004.

Smith, Arthur. “The Case for Space Based Solar Power Development.” 11 Aug. 2003. Space Daily. 23 Nov. 2004.

Smith, Arthur. “Space Solar Power for Moon and Earth.” 7 Jul. 2003. Sciscoop. 23 Nov. 2004.

Solar Energy Costs/Prices. 2004. Solar Buzz, Inc. 8 Nov. 2004.

Solberg, Kyle. “Global Sources of Oil.” 9 Oct. 2004.

Table 2.4 World Oil Demand, 2000-2004. Page last modified on 4 Oct. 2004. National Energy Information Center. 9 Oct. 2004.

Waelde, Thomas. “The Role of Arbitration in the Globalization of Energy Markets.” 2000. The Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy. 8 Oct. 2004.

Back