The Frantic Search for Energy

“THE scope is nothing we can even imagine. . . . Almost surely it will bring about tremendous social chaos, in the developed countries more than elsewhere.” With these words oceanographer Jacques Cousteau spoke recently of a “drastic energy crisis in the 1980’s.”

On the other hand, many others can produce charts and statistics indicating that our earth still contains enough oil, coal and other resources to provide energy and provide it in abundance. Obviously, in reading about the “energy crisis” one soon realizes that there is disagreement and confusion.

But Why the Confusion?

Is there a valid crisis? Surely we can find out if we are running out of energy, can’t we? A housewife knows when the cupboards are bare. Why is it seemingly impossible to get a simple answer to this question of energy reserves?

Because the problem is not a single problem, but a combination of problems. The proposed solutions likewise are numerous. As one energy expert put it, the causes of the “crisis” are “partly physical, partly political and partly economic.”

Further, many solutions depend upon “Ifs.” If there is growing cooperation among nations, if man can develop a way to get energy economically from this or that source, if it can be transported and distributed where needed​—then we have an answer. Theoretically much is possible; in reality, the choices may be few.

In today’s world if a nation has cheap energy it can give greater economic security to its people. Many scientists believe that a whole way of life for hundreds of millions of people is at stake. As one U.S. energy official put it: “There will be no time for experimenting when the oil runs out.”

In addition, however, a nation that has energy has political and economic power over other nations. The frantic search for energy has more than one motive.

To understand the complexity, we might consider just one energy source​—crude oil. Rich, black oil looked like the solution to man’s energy needs on into time indefinite. But not so today. Why not? Because while there is still much oil within the earth, these deposits are not equally distributed. Most of the oil is in the Arabian peninsula and within the Soviet Union. So, a small number of nations can drastically affect the world’s economic balance by adjusting the price of oil. Large and powerful nations fear being economically manipulated because of their dependence on oil.

One answer is to develop other energy sources within their national boundaries. However, technology must be advanced so as to locate and efficiently use these. When we read the “fine print” of these conflicting views over new sources we discern that, in many cases, the energy potential is there but man does not know at present how to draw it out and economically “put it to work.” No one wants to buy power at many times its present cost.

Where Are They Looking?

Here are just a few of the experimental or limited energy systems being developed:

● Several countries are investigating geothermal heat, that is, heat from within the earth. (See “Awake!” of January 8, 1978.)

● Nuclear fusion​—not the same as present nuclear power plants (which split the atom). It is a fusing of the nuclei of two elements, creating a powerful burst of energy. Problems: Technology is extremely complex; the present cost is high. A projected date for a “commercial reality” is the year 2000.

● A renewed interest in coal, especially in turning coal into a gas or liquid fuel.

● Windmills and devices to “harness” the tides show ‘great promise’ but need further development to be practical sources.

In addition to the above, there are two other prominent sources for power now being developed by several countries. They are: nuclear power plants (fission) and solar (sun) power.

The problems and possibilities of these will be discussed in the following articles by Awake! correspondents in Germany and Japan. Although reflecting local situations, these reports give us a further look at our world’s struggle over energy.

Germany’s Nuclear Energy Dilemma

By “Awake!” correspondent in the Federal Republic of Germany

NUCLEAR WAR! Who is not horrified at the very thought of it? The rapid collapse of Hitler’s forces in the spring of 1945 may well have been the thing that prevented Germany from getting the dubious distinction of being the first country struck by nuclear war. But now, over 30 years later, this country has been hit by something that leading German newspapers and magazines are likening to an “atomic war” of another kind, a serious one that may have far-reaching consequences.

About the only thing everyone agrees on is what this “war” is all about: the peaceful use of nuclear energy. So it’s a “peaceful atomic war,” if you will. But with that, agreement ends and dissension begins. Is it advisable and necessary to build nuclear power plants in the first place? If so, are construction requirements sufficiently high to ensure safety? What about disposing of radioactive waste? Is it wise and desirable to sell nuclear plants to other countries? What are proper methods to prevent possible terrorist misuse of nuclear know-how?

Man has been successful in splitting the atom, but he has not succeeded in preventing this knowledge from splitting the unity of his society and that of his governments. “Nuclear Energy Splitting Our Land,” warned the February 25, 1977, front-page headlines of the newspaper Die Zeit. Could it be that the atom is out for revenge?

To Build or Not to Build?

Proponents of nuclear power plants argue that additional energy sources are vital to guarantee the nation’s industrial capacity. They say that no alternative to nuclear power is presently available. While admitting the existence of certain dangers, they stress that necessary precautions have been taken to minimize the risk.

On the other hand, Horst-Ludwig Riemer, Economics Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, stated: “I am not impressed by the constantly recited prognosis: according to the law of averages, a reactor malfunction can only be expected once every 10,000 years. Nobody can assure me that this might not happen during its first year of operation.” The Süddeutsche Zeitung agreed: “In principle, if anything can happen sometime, then it can also happen now.”

The names of three of the over 20 nuclear power plants either now in operation or under construction have become almost synonymous with the protest movement​—Wyhl, Grohnde and Brokdorf. Describing violent clashes between protesters and police at Brokdorf in November of 1976, the Hamburger Morgenpost spoke of “wartime action.” Stern magazine called it “the civil war in Brokdorf,” and went on to say: “The atomic war is being fought on green meadows​—with conventional weapons. Its radiation does not kill, but the shock waves radiating out from the most brutal floggings to take place since the student unrests of 1968 are also poisonous​—poisonous for politicians. Those who persist in following a policy of bludgeoning their critics, instead of listening to them, are turning the democratic state into a police state.”

Citizen coalitions, organized to halt additional construction of nuclear power plants, argue that less dangerous alternatives are available to ensure an ample supply of energy. They protest with such catchy slogans as “Better active today than radioactive tomorrow,” or “Nuclear energy to be dead sure.” They also raise the question of where atomic waste from these plants can be deposited safely.

Citizens in a democratic state have the right of peaceful protest. Officials say that they have no contention with the citizen coalitions per se, even admitting that the government has seen fit to reappraise its energy program and construction standards in view of the arguments these groups have presented. But radical and criminal elements have managed to work their way into these citizen movements and have turned intended peaceful protest marches into angry riots. Some of the citizen leaders admit the danger of extremist infiltration, but take offense at being classified with terrorists, radicals and criminal elements. Their feeling is that they cannot be held responsible for persons who misuse protest marches for their own political purposes; nor can they be expected to forsake their right of peaceful protest merely to prevent such misuse. Besides, they maintain, the police at times have overreacted and employed authoritarian tactics.

Leading politicians disagree on how to solve the problem of protest. Die Zeit headlined an article on this subject with the observation: “Cabinet Is Split.” So are the courts. Whereas one court ruled to halt further construction on a reactor, less than a month later another court said that work on a second plant could continue. In both cases essentially the same issues were involved. Hence, the question remains, To build or not to build?

To Sell or Not to Sell?

Back in 1975 the Federal Republic of Germany agreed to sell Brazil eight nuclear reactors, a uranium enrichment plant and a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. This was strongly opposed by the United States. Despite opposition, the German government went ahead with its plans, finalizing them in April of 1977. The result has been tension between two powerful members of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. How paradoxical that the use of nuclear power in peacetime should threaten the unity of an organization set up to prevent its possible misuse in wartime!

Curbing the Terrorist Threat

Another factor that has come into the picture is the possible misuse of nuclear energy by terrorists. Germany has had its share of terrorist activity during the past few years. Hence, there is a nagging fear that terrorists might in some way obtain fissionable material with which to construct an atomic bomb. Although admittedly difficult, this is by no means impossible. Just how far should the government be permitted to go in taking preventive measures? Would it be justified in using even illegal and unconstitutional methods?

Pointing up the relevancy of such questions were news reports in March of 1977 that Klaus Traube, a German nuclear scientist, had been the victim of illegal government wiretapping. He was suspected of having terrorist connections, and out of fear that through him nuclear know-how might fall into the hands of terrorists, the government broke its own laws restricting wiretapping.

This revelation set off a chain reaction that brought still another disturbing fact to light. The government admitted that during 1975 and 1976 private conversations between the now convicted ringleaders of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist group and their lawyers had likewise been illegally recorded. Out of fear that her conversations would be recorded, Ulrike Meinhof, who committed suicide during the course of the two-year-long trial, had at times refused to talk to her lawyers, insisting upon communicating in writing instead. Although this event had no direct connection with the nuclear problem, the fear of terrorist misuse of nuclear know-how is what had brought it out into the open. It doubtless also widened the “credibility gap” between the government and its citizens, making a meeting of minds on the subject of nuclear energy more difficult to achieve.

Casualties

Casualties in wartime generally are counted in the thousands or millions of killed, injured and missing, and a war with no deaths would be a minor one indeed. While no deaths can as yet be directly attributed to Germany’s “peaceful nuclear war,” there exists the possibility of future fatalities. At Grohnde, 20,000 nuclear power opponents and 4,000 policemen battled with clubs, chains, iron bars, Molotov cocktails, tear gas and water cannons, leaving upward of 300 persons seriously injured. Such confrontations could easily bring about a number of deaths. Also, if some malfunction were to release radioactive material, as protesters fear, there could be many casualties.

In a sense, even the government has become a casualty. Increased friction has tended to weaken democratic processes inside the nation as well as its international alliances outside. The judicial victories won by citizen coalitions and the publicity they received have done much to increase the power of such coalitions and to broaden their base of operation. A temporary halting of construction work at Grohnde, for example, was ordered less than three months after the riots there. This has given rise to the fear that citizen coalitions might become so strong as to interfere with the proper functioning of government. Were that to happen, chaos would reign.

No wonder the average citizen is worried! He is concerned about possible loss of freedom and government breakdown. On the other hand, he is worried about nuclear proliferation, radioactive pollution and terrorist misuse of nuclear power.

Is the “Solar House” One Solution?

By “Awake!” correspondent in Japan

THE bright-red disk on a white background that serves as the national emblem of Japan is also a silent reminder of the time when the sun was worshiped throughout this land as the goddess Amaterasu Omikami. In recent times, Japanese attention once again has been directed heavenward, but this time in search of a reasonably priced source of energy.

Actually, for many years solar water heaters have dotted the roofs of tens of thousands of Japanese homes. However, it was not until the oil problems of 1973 and accompanying threats of energy rationing that serious attention was given to the use of solar energy on a scale larger than for private homes.

Along these lines, a notable step was taken at Numazu City, Japan, which has a population of more than 203,000 and is located between the foot of Mount Fuji and the sea. Officials and engineers there decided to decrease the city’s consumption of oil and electricity by using energy from the sun. The first practical result was the construction of the new Kanaoka Hall and City Office Annex, appropriately called Taiyo no Ie, that is, “House of the Sun” or “Solar House.” During its first year, this building saved Numazu City $5,000 just by using the sunshine that fell on the roof. Would you like to know more of the details that make this ‘sun house’ a success?

Tapping the Sun’s Energy

It is said that the earth receives 20,000 times as much energy from the sun as humans use. So the potential of this energy source is obvious. The two main hindrances to using solar energy are: (1) it is not continuous (the earth’s rotation and cloud cover causing interruptions), and (2) the low intensity necessitates large collector areas to harness the energy.

The many different systems being considered to harness the sun’s energy range from simple reflector cookers that can boil a liter (about 1 quart) of water in 20 minutes to photovoltaic cells (usually made of silicon) that convert the solar energy directly into electricity. In southern France, a large solar furnace using 3,500 small mirrors focused on a central point produces temperatures as high as 2,980 degrees Celsius (5,396 degrees Fahrenheit). Some scientists advocate placing collectors in orbit and sending the energy (in the form of microwaves) to large receivers on earth. Others feel that the electrical needs of the United States can be met by placing solar energy collectors in a vast area of desert land and then using that energy to produce steam for turning turbines.

Yes, there may be many ways of harnessing the sun’s energy, although much more research needs to be done before most of these methods can be put to use on any large scale. However, the system at “House of the Sun” already is in operation, saving money and resources by using the pollution-free energy of the sun. It has been so successful that Kyohiko Watenabe, assistant head of the Home Building and Repairs Department of the Environmental Bureau in Numazu, feels that within three years similar systems will be required on all new government buildings.

Instead of waiting until a total solar energy system was perfected, Numazu City officials decided to use what already had been developed. The system is simple, but operates at 30 percent efficiency. It collects enough energy each sunny day to heat or cool the two-story building with 716 square meters (7,707 square feet) of floor space, and to provide hot water for washing and for making tea. When it is rainy or cloudy, an auxiliary boiler may have to run one day in three. Nevertheless, getting two thirds of the heating energy from the sun in a country that has to import 98 percent of its oil certainly is a noteworthy step. How does this “House of the Sun” harness the energy of its namesake?

Two hundred and twenty-four collectors are lined up on the roof, all of them lying at a 25-degree angle to catch the direct rays of the sun. Each collector has a glass cover to let the light pass through. Water circulates through small black tubes inside, where it is heated. This heated water flows into a 20-ton storage tank, where the temperature may reach the boiling point. When this stored water gets cooler than the water in the collectors on the roof, a small pump circulates it through radiators inside the building, and fans distribute the heat. Because chemicals are in this water to prevent rust and sludge from forming, it is not drinkable. But a separate five-ton container inside the big storage tank is heated to provide water for washing and the making of tea.

By applying the principles used in a refrigeration unit that is powered by gas, solar energy also cools the building. Therefore, the hotter it gets outside, the more energy becomes available for cooling. Walking into the “Solar House” on a very hot summer day and finding that the inside temperature is 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) is convincing proof that there are practical ways of utilizing solar energy.

“Solar House” in Numazu is a practical example of utilizing an abundant source of energy, one that is especially usable between 35 degrees north and 35 degrees south latitude. Numazu officials were so convinced that they had taken a step in the right direction that a solar heating and cooling system was installed in a new nursing home in the Ashitaka Mountain area of the city.

The floor space of this new home is twice that of “Solar House,” and so its solar energy system’s capacity is more than double that of the “House of the Sun.” Five hundred and twenty-two collectors on the roof provide energy for heating and cooling the home, as well as furnishing hot water for tea and bathing. Because an extra 100 square meters (1,076 square feet) of collector area was provided for possible future expansion, the efficiency of this unit is 37 percent and energy can be stored for later use.

Solution to Future Energy Problems?

Are there any difficulties or disadvantages in using a solar energy system? Yes. Balancing the flow of water through the two-square-meter (22-square-foot) collectors and pipes was the biggest problem. But this was overcome, and the system at the “Solar House” has continued working with relatively little maintenance. Probably the biggest drawback is initial cost, this being much higher than that of conventional gas or oil systems. However, with the savings in energy, the added expense for the system at “Solar House” will be paid for in seven years, or even sooner if the price of oil continues to rise. The nursing home at Ashitaka cost an extra ¥18,500,000 (US$61,667) to build, but it is estimated that this expense will be recovered in 4.2 years of operation. Why is this so? Because energy expenses for heating and cooling are ¥750,000 (US$2,500) a year at Ashitaka, but in a comparable facility also housing 50 persons and using conventional systems, the yearly cost is ¥5,200,000 (US$17,333).

So what impression has the “House of the Sun” made on us? First, it has taught us to look at solar energy realistically. This is not a total energy system. Electricity is required for the lights and office machines, as well as the pumps and fans connected with the solar system. Also, if it rains or is cloudy, the auxiliary boiler must be used. (This is not an independent system, but merely heats the water in the solar energy system.) On the other hand, when the sun is shining, which is about two thirds of the daylight hours, the energy that otherwise would be reflected back into the atmosphere or absorbed by the roof is being put to work through a virtually nonpolluting system.

Secondly, the fact that a city was willing to break away from the normally accepted means of heating and cooling impresses us with the need to evaluate the way the earth’s resources are being used. Many people fear that at the present rate, the fossil fuels will be used up in a relatively short time. However, due to the convenience of burning such fuels, people are slow to adopt new methods that may require adjustments in their energy consumption or a greater initial investment, even though these may have better long-range prospects.

Thirdly, reliance on solar energy helps to build appreciation for simpler things and those that we may have taken for granted. Interestingly, the city engineer who showed us around the “Solar House” said that until these buildings were constructed, he never really had appreciated what it means to have the sun come up every morning. Just think about that for a moment. If the sun were not shining, the temperature everywhere on earth would be minus 240 degrees Celsius (−400 degrees Fahrenheit).

Even without rooftop collectors, solar energy affects our lives in many ways. By means of light from the sun, plants change carbon dioxide from the air and hydrogen from water in the soil into carbohydrates that become our food. Wind is an indirect form of solar energy, for the heating and cooling of land masses and the atmosphere cause the breezes to blow. Every day, heat from the sun evaporates from the earth the vast amount of water that later falls as rain or snow. When that water is collected into rivers and reservoirs, man can tap the sun’s stored energy by means of waterwheels and hydroelectric generating systems.

Every year the earth receives 700 quadrillion kilowatt-hours of energy from the sun. Yet that fantastic amount is but a minute fraction of the sun’s total output because it shines outward in all directions. To what extent man in the future will be able to harness this virtually unlimited supply of energy remains to be seen. But that he can​—if he chooses to do so—​put solar energy to practical use becomes evident when we consider modern buildings such as the “House of the Sun.”