I. Lovins explores the two different energy paths that the U.S. might take for the next 50 years. The first energy path is a continuation of the present federal policy—“It relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path is towards the serious commitment to the efficient use of energy, development of renewable energy sources. Both paths are mutually exclusive of each other.
II. The majority of official proposals for future energy policy have two main goals: sustaining growth in energy consumption and minimizing oil imports. This requires the expansion of three energy sectors: coal, oil and gas, and nuclear fission. Domestic resources will be “squeezed hard”. The use of “unconventional” energy is given a minor role. Emphasis is on short term.
III. Lovins points out the flaws of this policy. He points to a projected shortage of fossil fuels and the inefficient conversion of primary energy to end use energy as the culprits. In addition capital costs of implementing this policy are staggering.
IV.
Lovins instead proposes a different policy path. He proposes a path of “technical fixes”
and changes in lifestyles in order “to do more with less energy”. Technical fixes entails plugging leaks
and using thriftier technology in order to achieve the same output of goods and
services. Changes in lifestyles
include car-pooling, smaller cars, mass transit, bicycles, walking, opening
windows, etc. Theoretical analysis
proves that this path can result in the same output all while saving energy—a
much more cost effective policy rather than implementing the previous
policy. Lovins estimates that if
these plans were implemented the U.S. could be able to double the amount of
social benefit from the use of each energy unit.
What is holding us back from
implementing these policies? Lovins
blames institutional barriers, i.e. conflicting building codes, an
innovation-resistant building industry, lack of mechanisms to ease transition,
etc.
V.
Advocates the development of soft technologies. Soft technologies rely on renewable
energy flows; they are diverse, flexible and relatively low technology; they are
matched in scale and in geographic distribution; they are matched in energy
quality to end-use needs.
Goes on to explain that much of
the energy needed does not need to be in the form of electricity. The production of two units of
electricity requires three units of fuel.
In addition, distribution of electricity through the infrastructure
accounts for almost half the cost of electricity. Therefore other means of using energy
should be sought after, namely soft energy.
Proposes the use of solar power,
wind-hydraulic systems, mass production of power generators, conversion of
agricultural, forestry and urban wastes to energy, and so forth. This soft energy system would be
decentralized as opposed to the current centralized electrical system.
VI.
In order to implement this soft technology into our strategy,
transitional technologies are necessary. This transitional technology would
use fossil fuels until the soft technological policy path was achieved. Lovins mentions the use of coal
technology to bridge this gap. The
transitional technologies can be built and then the soft technologies can latter
be plugged into the system latter.
VII. Lovins then describes the differences between the policy path that he is proposing “Soft” and the current policy “Hard”.
Soft Path—relies on smaller, far
simpler supply systems. In addition
it has a much lower and more stable operating costs than the proposed hard
path. Also, the soft path appears
to have lower initial costs.
Hard Path—poses a greater
environmental risk, relies on very few high technologies whose success has not
been assured. While with the Soft
path technical risk is distributed among many low technologies.
VIII. Implementing the soft path has many implications. Internationally, poor, underdeveloped countries would benefit tremendously as their demand of oil would be reduced. In the United States, the soft path could curtail the proliferation of nuclear power around the world. Because, the U.S. offers political and technical support for other countries trying to start nuclear power programs, this switch to a soft policy path would attract other countries to follow in the U.S.’s footsteps.
--Chang, Gary