THE WORLD’S ENERGY WHERE ARE REPLACEMENTS FOR MIDDLE EAST OIL?

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33383, 15 November 1973, Page 12

THE WORLD’S ENERGY WHERE ARE REPLACEMENTS FOR MIDDLE EAST OIL?

(Reprinted from the "Economist" by arrangement.) The Arab countries are now cutting back their production of oil by nearly 25 per cent. The British Government still hopes that it has been sufficiently pro-Arab in the past month to reap a reward from the oil producers. But no advanced industrial country can do other than to pray that in the not-too-distant future technology will reduce the world’s dependence on oil — which to a large extent means Arab oil and even more particularly Saudi Arabian oil.

The men responsible for investing hundreds of millions of pounds in the development of nuclear power, one of the most popular alternatives to oil, believe that while technology may indeed do the trick one day nothing is certain. To some extent, all the alternative sources now enjoying a vogue—nuclear, solar, geothermal, oil shale, tar sands, wind, tides, coal gasification—will make their contribution. But still they may not be able to replace oil. People tend to forget what a cheap, flexible fuel oil is. One of the most important markets for oil is in transport, and of the many alternative fuels only the tar sands and oil shale, which are really alternative methods of producing oil, could conveniently replace today’s oil. North Sea prospects Oil from new locations outside the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (0.P.E.C.) is the only feasible alternative source to the huge Middle East reserves. The continental shelves of the world and perhaps eventually the deep sea bed itself can probably be exploited for the huge oil reserves they are almost bound to contain. The environmentalists will fight some of these projects, too, but in many places the oil industry is likely to be allowed to explore and produce, just as it is exploring and producing today in the North Sea. The North Sea is usually regarded as unimportant in world or even European terms, but only 18 months ago the “Economist” was almost alone in claiming that North Sea oil would meet Britain’s needs some time in the 1980 s. Now it is generally accepted that the British Government has been overly cautious in its North Sea oil estimates and that there is a good chance that Britain may be exporting oil by 1985.

So there is some reason to be optimistic about the

course of oil exploration in the rest of the North Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Atlantic approaches to the English Channel, off the northern coast of Norway and the deep sea bed all the way up to Iceland. Some of these waters are beyond the reach of existing technology, especially production technology, but technological progress is almost certain by the 1980 s and 19905. While no one can say how much oil will be discovered, seismic studies are encouraging, and there is a good chance that before the century ends Europe as a whole will get a good part of its oil from these waters. But not immediately. Coal gasification would produce something akin to natural gas, and that could be used in car engines; but it would be more valuable replacing oil used for other purposes. Other alternatives would produce electricity, but that would be of no help to road or air transport unless cheap, reliable batteries or fuel cells were also developed. There are, of course, scientists who are optimistic about battery and fuel cell development but so far no one has been able to come up with the goods. It is generally conceded that no one will do so until some fundamental breakthroughs are achieved and these, by their nature, occur unpredictably. Nuclear problems The prospects would- not look so bleak if it was certain that enough electricity could be produced by means other than burning oil. Nuclear power is the nearest hope, but it is beset by many troubles. They include the mundane but stubborn problems associated with the construction of today’s fission reactors; safety and environmental worries of a magnitude never before associated with any industrial process; fears that the next generation of reactors, the so-called fast breeders, may never be technically perfected; and doubts whether the fusion reactor, which should be the ultimate answer, can ever be made to produce electricity at all. Nuclear reactors already operating or under construction account for 290,000 megawatts of annual generating capacity, or 20 per cent of the world’s total electricity supply. This proportion is certain to grow substantially during the remainder of the century. Many of the companies that have invested so heavily in the construction of nuclear power reactors will make a handsome profit in the end. But the opponents of nuclear power, whose ranks include many serious scientists, are likely to keep licensing procedures moving at only a snail’s pace, especially in America, West Germany and Japan. There is a finite amount of easily accessible uranium in the world, and it would not take many years for a large network of today’s reactors to pre-empt it. Some time in the 19905, the world may have to start constructing a large number of breeder reactors, which will breed as much fuel as they burn up. This may sound a long way off but it is only a short time away in terms of the creation of a mammoth new technology that uses an exotic method to draw away the heat from what is an extremely hot reactor.

The difficulties ' were underlined when it was reported that two pumps in the prototype breeder that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is constructing at Dounreay in the north of Scotland broke down during commissioning. The job of the pumps is to circulate the coolant, which happens to be liquid sodium, a worrisome material that ignites on contact with air. The Atomic Energy Authority, which still has not explained what went wrong with the pumps, says that there was no danger of any sodium leaking from the reactor. Yet a malfunctioning pump could easily spring a leak, resulting in a fire and an accident that could range anywhere from minor to disastrous.

Fantastic heat The safety situation with the fusion reactor would be far better. A fusion reactor would burn up all its waste products and even while operating would contain only relatively small amounts of radioactive material. The worst accident that can be imagined with a fusion reactor would be only local in effect, though it too would be extremely nasty. The fundamental problem with the fusion reactor is that the process of fusing atoms creates temperatures that would melt any material known to man. To overcome this difficulty, scientists have been working for years now to contain the reaction in a powerful magnetic field or “bottle.” At first, progress was slow because even low-power reactions would leak through any weak point in the bottle. However, in the past few years much more powerful and effective magnetic bottles have been created, largely because of breakthroughs first made by the Russians. The reactions that have so far been contained are below fusion levels but

ithere is now real hope that if a full-scale plant were 'constructed a fusion reaction •itself could be contained. I The obstacle here, in I terms of practical politics, is {that there is no certainty that the reaction would be contained. Each experiment would probably cost about £lom, and each might be a flop. If five or six different types of large-scale prototypes were tried, there would be a good chance that one of them would work, but Aintil now the fusion camp has been unable to persuade the governments of the world to take the gamble. This point is not widely appreciated, although it should be, for if fusion reactors were to prove feasible they could provide almost unlimited amounts of power indefinitely. Their fuel, heavy isotopes of hydrogen, is found in nearly endless quantities in sea water. In addition, there would probably be only weak objections on safety and environmental grounds against the widespread construction of fusion reactors. In fact, many of today’s environmentalists strongly favour the development of fusion power. The other alternative sources of power vary widely in their importance, technical feasibility and social acceptability. In many ways, geothermal power is an ideal source since it is clean and, as with hydroelectric power, its “fuel” constantly renews itself. However, there are relatively few places in the world where hot springs bubble to the surface or can be tapped with conventional drilling methods. Where these conditions apply, the steam can be easily har nessed to drive turbines. There are imaginative schemes to drill through the earth’s crust and pipe water down to the hot rocks underneath, producing steam which could then be used to drive turbines, but even if this should turn out to be technically possible the cost would be fearsome. Squeezing oil from tar sands and ojl shale and converting low-quality coal to a rich gas are all technically feasible and all could be important in improving energy supply because the energy potentially available from these methods is huge. However, all of these methods would come under fierce attack from environmentalists because all of them would necessitate ripping up huge sections of ground to obtain the raw material. In America it would be necessary to strip-mine large areas of some of the most beautiful states in the Far West to obtain the oil shale and lowquality coal. The cost in terms of unit prices is no longer a barrier. All these methods were nearly economic before the recent 70 per cent increase in oil prices unilaterally announced by O.P.E.C. The 70 per cent increase should make tar sands oil especially profitable. Huge capital But all these methods require huge capital investments (for the Athabasca tar sands in Canada, $ US5OOm for the optimumsize 12,000 - barrels - a - day plant), which probably will not be made on a large scale until the Middle East oil situation becomes much worse than it is today. The likelihood is that the present Arab cutbacks will be only a hiccup in long-term supplies and that once it is over much of the enthusiasm about alternative energy sources will swiftly fade away.

Sun, wind and tides, along with geothermal and hydroelectrical power, are probably the most natural sources of power but it is difficult to see, any of them playing a major role in the world’s energy supply. Building dams to harness the tides is expensive and only applicable in a few spots where the tides rise and fall enough to make such projects economic. However, as the long-range transmission of electric power becomes more efficient there is a good chance that more of these projects will be initiated. With the continuing rise of oil prices that most experts expect in the next few years wind-driven generators are likely to find a sizeable market among individuals living in isolated, windy places but it is difficult to see them providing large chunks of power. Much the same can be said for solar power. Homeowners in sunny climates may find it increasingly attractive to install solar heating systems and in special circumstances solar furnaces may even furnish enough power for limited industrial uses. More ambitious schemes for solar power will require much research and development before anyone knows whether they ’ are feasible. For one thing, a good cheap transducer for converting sunlight to electricity must yet be devised. Squadron Leader G. W. Ragg, of Christchurch, has been appointed commanding officer of the R.N.Z.A.F. base at Shelley Bay in Wellington. He joined the service in 1958 and has served as a transport pilot and as a flying instructor.