Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Osmeña: Time to evaluate energy sources By Antonio V. Osmeña Estatements
IF our political leaders must try to determine which mix of energy alternatives might provide primary energy for the future, we must think and plan in three time frames that cover the 50-year period normally needed to develop and phase in new energy resources.
These include the short term (2008-2018), the intermediate (2018-2028) and the long term (2028-2058) periods.
The first step is to decide how much of what kinds of primary energy, such as low-temperature heat, high-temperature heat, electricity and liquid fuels, for transportation, will be needed. Then, we project the mix of energy alternatives—including energy efficiency—that can provide the necessary energy services at the lowest lifetime cost and with acceptable environmental impacts.
This means that for each energy alternative, we need to know (1) the total estimated supply available in each time frame, (2) estimated net useful energy yield, (3) projected costs for development and lifetime use and (4) potential environmental impacts.
Since the 1973 oil embargo, there has not been any major effort to gather such information to help our country develop a long-term energy strategy.
Our political leaders are too much preoccupied with the win-lose game of politics.
Although projections about the future are always controversial, nevertheless, despite difficulties in weighing and ascertaining the reliability of data, government agencies concerned and individual engineers must try to evaluate the information available and use them to implement short-term, intermediate-term and long-term energy plans, which are subject to updating and revision as new information becomes available.
The price of crude oil has reached $133 per barrel. The decay of radioactive elements deep within the Philippine archipelago generates heat that slowly flows into buried rock formations.
Under intense pressure and lava flow from the molten interior of the earth, some of the earth’s geothermal energy escapes through hot springs, geysers and volcanoes, and some are transferred over thousands to millions of years to normal non-renewable deposits of dry steam, wet steam (a mixture of steam and water droplets) and hot water lying relatively close to the earth’s surface.
Geothermal wells can be drilled, like oil and natural gas wells, to bring this dry steam, wet steam or hot water to the earth’s surface.
Since 1983, over 40 countries were tapping such deposits of geothermal energy to produce electricity, provide low-to moderate-temperature heat for industrial processes, to heat water in homes and businesses, and to provide space heating.
Although such sources are non-renewable, they were projected to last 100 to 200 years in most places.
The Philippine archipelago has tremendous possible sources of geothermal energy. Regardless of how one feels about nuclear power, the major factor slowly shutting down the world’s nuclear industries is economics.
Only where nuclear power is pushed, controlled and heavily subsidized by a strong central government is development now proceeding even close to the rate projected a decade ago. About 60 percent of the coal extracted in the world, and 70 percent of that in the United States, is burned in boilers to produce steam used as general electrical power providing about 85 percent of the electricity used in the world.
One of the major by-products of the process is coal tar, which is used for roofing and road surfacing and as ingredient in various drugs and dyes.
Another possibility is coal liquefaction which involves converting coal to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, such as methanol or synthetic gasoline.
A number of studies have shown that improvements in energy efficiency could cut average per capita primary energy use by 50 percent and perhaps ultimately by 90 percent without decreasing the quality of life.
The best short-term, intermediate-term and long-term alternative for our country is to reduce unnecessary energy waste by improving the efficiency of energy use. It is suggested that national and local government maintain and extend tax credits to homeowners and businesses that use energy-conserving devices and materials.
