July 22, 2007
Do National Security and Environmental Energy Policies Conflict? Becker
Individuals and groups support government regulation of energy use either because they are concerned about the negative effects of oil, gas, and other fossil fuels on the environment, or about the impact of demand for these fuels on national security. Prospects for political consensus on energy policies are dim for the many approaches that further one of these causes at the expense of the other.
Environmental-driven energy policies try to reduce pollution from cars, the generation of electric power, and other industrial and household activities. An obvious example is the current efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal. National security energy policies may try to reduce the vulnerability of energy sources to hostile acts, such as interference with oil or gas imports, or to disruptions at the source, such as with Middle Eastern oil supplies, or the supply of natural gas from Russia. National security also depends on how much revenue is received by oil and gas producing countries that may support terrorism, or are vulnerable to potential takeover by terrorist organizations.
Many ways to make the supply of energy sources more reliable in order to promote national security conflict with the goal of reducing pollution from the use of energy in the economy. For example, China and the United States have abundant supplies of coal, and their further development and use would make the energy used by both countries less dependent on foreign supply. However, coal fired power plants emit large amounts of CO2 that are thought by many to be an important contributor to global warming. The burning of coal also contributes significantly to local pollution, mainly through the emission of sulphur dioxide gases. These local emissions can be greatly reduced through known technologies that involve installing expensive scrubbers that may not be used by poorer countries.
Some security specialists advocate that the United States shift more of its demand for oil and natural gas to friendly sources in the Western Hemisphere, such as Canada and Mexico, in order to reduce the vulnerability of its energy imports to hostile acts. Such a shift, however, would not improve the environmental impact of America's use of oil and gas, nor would it do anything to reduce the revenue from the sale of oil and gas by Middle Eastern and other potentially unfriendly states. For the world price of these fuels should not be affected by much, if at all, by shifts of U.S. demand to nearby friendly nations. Countries that would have bought oil and gas from say Canada and Mexico would now have to buy more of these fuels from Middle Eastern or other potentially unfriendly producers to make up for the shortfalls in available supply from these countries.
Fortunately, various governmental policies contribute to both environmental and national security goals. A tax on carbon emissions from business and household production would not only help reduce global warming-by how much is still controversial- but it would also lower the world prices of these fuels through reducing the demand for fossil fuels. Lower prices would cut the revenues received by Middle Eastern states from the sale of oil and natural gas. This is why a carbon tax receives support from many environmentalists and national security advocates.
Nuclear power also gets high marks on national security grounds (although as we will see, not necessarily on international security grounds) as well as on many environmental issues. Nuclear power is clean and does not emit CO2, SO2, or other gases that contribute to global or local pollution. Accidents and natural events that release radioactive materials from nuclear power plants are a risk, such as in the recent earthquake in Nigata prefecture in Northwestern Japan that caused a leak of apparently low level radiation from a nuclear power plant located there. But serious accidents have been very rare because so many precautions are taken in state of the art plants-the worse accident occurred at Cherynobyl in a plant that had minimal and primitive safety measures. Although safety is not much of an issue in nuclear power plants in economically advanced countries, it may well be for some of the many plants currently under construction in China and India.
The disposal of nuclear waste, either through reuse, or burial deeply in former mines or far under oceans, may also present major environmental challenges. Clearly, reuse of much of the waste is feasible-France, a major producer of nuclear power, reuses most of its waste. My conclusion from reading some of the literature on disposal is that safe burial is also feasible, especially for large countries like the United States and China, but that view is not universally accepted.
Nuclear power has many advantages on national security grounds. The supply of uranium, unlike oil, is widespread and abundant, and there is little risk that any single or small number of uranium producing countries can blackmail other countries by withholding supplies. The international security issues from nuclear power relate to countries that as yet do not have arsenals of nuclear weapons. If these countries develop nuclear power they will automatically generate the plutonium necessary to construct nuclear bombs. If some of that plutonium fell into the hands of rogue states or terrorist groups, the risk of possibly millions of deaths from nuclear attacks becomes scary.
Driven by environmental and security concerns, more extensive government intervention in the supply and demand for energy are to be expected during the next few years in all economically important countries. Policies that meet both these concerns are feasible, and clearly would have greater political support than the many approaches that advance one of these goals at the expense of the other.
Posted by becker at 09:31 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1599
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do National Security and Environmental Energy Policies Conflict? Becker:
» Thailand Surgery from Thailand Surgery
hmmm . .. I'm not sure about that, actually. Let me think about it and I'll write more later [Read More]
Tracked on July 26, 2007 12:48 AM
Comments
Thanks for a nice article. I have 3 comments -
1) The "low level leak" from the recent earthquake hit plant in Japan was about 1/10th to 1/5th of a cubic meter of a typical soil. Or it was the same hazard as if a dozen humans jumped into that sea the spill went to. It is ludicrous to even mention such a nuisance.
2) Normal civilian nuclear plants do not produce plutonium usable for nuclear weapons. For that special reactors are a necessity - such as the one North Koreans have, the heavy water moderated NRX-like reactor Pakistan used and Iran is constructing or the infamous RBMK used in Chernobyl. These are fundamentally different construction from the current PWR/BWR fleet deployed world wide, or from the GenIV designs.
3) Nuclear fuel can be recycled, it is a matter of national policy. President Carted banned recycling, effectively killing the related industry for good. However the US had developed a concept of fast reactor with on-site reprocessing, which can utilize the uranium about 200x better than contemporary designs. At the same time, as it recycles the fuel on-site, no fission fuel ever leaves the plant, thus it poses zero proliferation risk.
Google for "Integral Fast Reactor".
Posted by ondrejch at July 23, 2007 12:45 AM | direct link
I guess I am in the dark about why everyone is so worried about terrorists and nuclear fuel. Certainly it would require quite a bit of expertise to generate a nuclear bomb from plutonium, not to mention expensive raw materials, precision manufacturing equipment and the huge problem of delivery.
It seems to me that a rational (maximizing damage/dollar) terrorist would go after bio-chem weapons every time. Refining several gallons of Botulinum toxin has got to be orders of magnitude simpler, cheaper and more effective than trying to build a nuclear bomb.
This is not to say that proper precautions should not be used, but nuclear weapons clearly have much more military than terrorist utililty. The argument that we would make it easier for terrorists to acquire WMD by more broad use of nuclear power seems to be quite hollow.
Posted by nordsieck at July 23, 2007 04:09 AM | direct link
What about the recent nuclear deal between the US and India? Where does it take the nuclear energy market?
Posted by Samantha at July 26, 2007 06:00 PM | direct link
I have a friend who is building a small cabin in the woods by hand for a retreat spot. What does that have to do with nuclear power?
One of the first things he built was the outhouse. Nuclear power
operators should do the same.
Posted by mpg at July 27, 2007 08:42 AM | direct link
A brief comment; I am assuming the method of waste disposal Prof. Becker mentions is the subductive waste disposal method, which would involve burial a few thousand meters below the ocean floor in a subducting tectonic plate (where, theoretically, the waste would be incorporated and cycled through the earth's mantle). This then would produce an environmentally safe, effective method of permanent disposal. However, some digging on the internet yielded little about the actual process and costs involved; clearly, this projected solution is still in its theoretical stage. What exactly are the risks and monetary costs involved, and is this actually an economically feasible solution, even for wealthy countries?
Posted by fishie at July 27, 2007 09:14 AM | direct link
Interesting blog and comments. One of the few times I have read such politically incorrect, but scientifically correct comments. The concepts of national security and CO2 emissions along with reasonable comments on nuclear power all in one blog -- amazing.
With some friends, we have calculated the tradeoff between oil and capital intensive alternative energy at about 1 million BBL / Day of oil production = about a 100 billion dollars in Capital cost. With the cost of this war, we could have displaced about 25% of our oil imports, which would have helped the US and world a lot more than the war and hurt the funding of the terrorists. We estimated that about $3/gal oil tax + $25/ton CO2 tax (on all carbon emmissions) imposed in a revenue neutral manner (say reducing payroll taxes -- making labor cheaper relative to capital), should be enough to turn us around
Posted by Dallas Weaver at July 27, 2007 04:11 PM | direct link
You fail to mention renewable energy. One renewable energy policy that is not discussed here and, in my opinion, meets both concerns is a renewable portfolio standard. By utilizing renewable energy sources, we will reduce our dependence on imports - most notably natural gas - and simultaneously reduce emissions.
Posted by Stanley at July 28, 2007 09:17 PM | direct link
Gads, Americans are considering corporatism; oh well, go check out Brazil's autarchic energy policies re: Alcohol fuel for autos; also South African Liquid Oil (SASOL). Sasol was unprofitable outside boycot positions (roughly 3 1977 dollars per gallon, at best, more realistically 5 1979 dollars per gallon of gasoline produced). France tried going nuclear; I don't think it's the way to go. Of course all these corporatist ruminations are not free market solutions. Best approach is to let the market decide, really: that would likely be for solar as it has become about 300% more efficient over the past 20 years and likely will get more efficient as materials science (unlike semiconductors...) has not yet "peaked".
Posted by anon at July 29, 2007 10:20 AM | direct link
Current national security and energy policies do conflict. Subsidies for oil consumption harm our environment and our security. But as you suggest, good energy policy is good national security policy. It always will be.
Good energy policy means efficiency, renewables, and conservation. Amory Lovins has been promoting efficiency at the Rocky Mountain Institute for decades, particularly ways to reduce market barriers to efficiency. He has also demonstrated how effiicency and distributed power contribute to national and international security, while building wealth. He is always worth reading.
A carbon tax would certainly move us in the right direction. And already efficiency, wind, and solar are the fastest growing sources of energy services.
But does nuclear power deserve high marks on national security grounds? Throw out all the liberal arguments against nuclear so we can see the conservative case more clearly. Nuclear power is anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-security. Consider the regulations, bureaucracy, and subsidies that nuclear power requires. A free market in nuclear power is neither possible nor desirable. Is anyone happy that North Korea, Iran, or Iraq were developing nuclear power? How transparent is our nation's nuclear security policy? How much freedom have we recently paid to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism by some unknown amount?
And if the benefit of reducing the threat of nuclear attack from Iraq might have been as much as one trillion dollars, as you argue in your next blog entry "Comment on cost benefit analysis applied to the Iraq war", doesn't that suggest a trillion dollar cost of nuclear power?
Posted by Mark Shapiro at July 30, 2007 02:04 AM | direct link
