Author note:

I have no idea when I originally wrote this. I suspect is was for a solar newsletter I was co-editing in the 1970s. As with most such articles, it probably went through a number of versions.

THOUGHTS ON ENERGY

By Hal Mansfield

Too often, the thinking regarding energy tends to be fragmented and directed toward specific sources or solutions. What is needed is a comprehensive view, one which incorporates all sources of energy into an ENERGY MATRIX. With the energy matrix concept, each energy would be developed and used in relation to every other energy. Oil, natural gas, coal, synthetic fuels, nuclear, wind, water, biomass and solar energies would all be developed in concert. Conservation would also be viewed as an important energy "source".

The so-called National Energy Plan does not do this. Its principle thrust is toward the development of synthetic fuels. The renewables are given a particularly low order of financing and of priority.

The ENERGY MATRIX approach would take into consideration that certain energy sources have appropriate applications. For example, solar energy is appropriate for relatively low energy use requirements, such as heating buildings; it is not presently directly viable as a jet fuel source.

The ENERGY MATRIX approach would further balance energy development costs against applications, time factors, labor impact considerations, and other similar factors.

In this regard, CONSERVATION becomes the salient "energy source". It has the lowest cost per Btu "produced"; it has the widest range of applications; it can 'be brought on line in the shortest time span; it produces more jobs (and jobs requiring lesser skill development and training costs) per energy unit; and, it is very low in terms of "negative residuals", such as ecological impact.

CONSERVATION

should become the cornerstone of our energy policy; National energy legislation should be rewritten to reflect this. The various Federal programs should a -11 be redirected to reflect this. It. makes political sense: the broadest constituency would be served. It makes economic sense: the economy would receive the broadest and most sustained stimulation. It makes "special interest" sense: large corporations and labor unions would benefit greatly, as would small businesses It is responsible: the existing fossil fuel reserves can be "stretched" to last longer, to last until new developments in energy -- such as hydrogen production - can be brought into the future ENERGY MATRIX.

Synfuels

would play a much smaller role simply because they would cost so very much to develop; would take a relatively long time to bring on line; would require fewer workers, and higher skilled workers; and would create a great many negative residuals, ranging from the ecological impacts associated with mining and processing of the fuel base materials, to the social consequences on "impacted" areas and communities.

Nuclear energy would likewise play a smaller and a transitory role because it is expensive (per unit of energy) to produce; it results in the creation of dangerous by-products; it is not relatively labor intensive; it takes a long time to bring a nuclear plant on-line; and, nuclear fuels, as presently defined, are very finite.

Fusion research could certainly continue under an energy matrix approach to solving the energy crisis. However, it would be given a relatively low priority because -- even if it were to prove feasible, a very big "if" at this time --it would be highly politically and financially centralized, relatively labor detensive (requiring fewer, highly trained people), and is certainly a long way off, even when the most optimistic view of its development is accepted.

Solar

in all of its broad aspects (wind, water, waves, wood, rays, etc.) would become a very high priority energy source -- perhaps ranking close to conservation -- because it is renewable; it can be brought on line relatively quickly and in a decentralized fashion; it will result in the creation of a great many more jobs per energy unit than synfuels and nuclear; it is less ecologically negative; it is very financially sensible per energy unit; and, it is the nearly unanimous choice of the American people, according to national polls, as THE energy resource for the future.

Several of the key thrusts of solar research and development which have received the bulk of the solar funding would be relegated to less prominent roles, if the matrix analysis criteria are strictly applied. For example, tower powers funding and other high technology, capital intensive and labor detensive approaches to solar utilization, would be scaled back. The solar satellite power system would be treated as a far out solar "joke", a status it should have gained at the outset, and would never again be the object of funding.

Other considerations

one key factor in considering an ENERGY MATRIX is the matter of National defense. A number of key defense figures, including the Head of the Department of Defense, has cited our dependence on imported oil as the weakest link in our military preparedness posture. This suggests that we must hasten the day of energy independency as quickly as we can. The ENERGY MATRIX concept and the energy analyses it entails, as I have outlined these, would bring us to energy independence in the shortest possible time. Evidence for this is the recently observed trend toward reduced imports, a good deal of which is due solely to energy conservation measures.

Some actually view the world energy situation as a definite threat to world peace. This view is net necessarily a wrong one. The modern world has become so energy dependent that whole cultures could begin to crumble in the face of energy shortages. Desperate times might lead to desperate means; and, war could easily follow.

Energy Matrix Analysis (EMA)

could thus be seen, if applied rapidly and on a worldwide scale, as one means of reducing the prospect of war -- perhaps global war.

In closing

new legislation, legislation with a different thrust, is needed. The synfuel(SINFUEL) emphasis should be set aside in favor of a more rational, better balance ENERGY MATRIX legislative package.

But a11 of the above is not enough. Finally, there is the need for education. The public is already ahead of many government, business and industry leaders in this regard. The majority of the "common people" want us to achieve energy independence and energy stability. Both can be accomplished. They can be accomplished within the framework of an expanding economy and a better life for every American. The ENERGY MATRIX plan provides the very best way to achieve these worthy ends.

EMA seems to me to make good sense. Perhaps that will be one of the major barriers to bringing it into common use. Sensible solutions to problems seldom are the solutions of first choice.

ENERGY MATRIX thinking, analysis, synthesis, education and legislation are needed. Let's hope that the ENERGY MATRIX idea becomes a practiced reality.