download

400 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
400
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

download

  1. 1. Is it Worthwhile to Fight for Energy Security? Clinton Andrews Rutgers University
  2. 2. Energy Security <ul><li>Definition of Energy Security </li></ul><ul><li>Imperfect Markets for Oil & Electricity </li></ul><ul><li>Rationales for Governmental Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>The Special Role of Energy Carriers </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Security as a Policy Driver </li></ul>
  3. 3. Focusing on Energy Security <ul><li>Yergin: “The objective of energy security is to assure adequate, reliable supplies of energy at reasonable prices and in ways that do not jeopardize major national values and objectives.” </li></ul><ul><li>Energy is a modern necessity. Energy security is a polarizing issue in U.S. politics. </li></ul>
  4. 4. U.S. Energy Use, 1635-2000 (Quadrillion Btu)
  5. 5. Energy Security <ul><li>Definition of Energy Security </li></ul><ul><li>Imperfect Markets for Oil & Electricity </li></ul><ul><li>Rationales for Governmental Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>The Special Role of Energy Carriers </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Security as a Policy Driver </li></ul>
  6. 6. Petroleum <ul><li>Petroleum market suffers from dramatic and persistent price volatility. </li></ul><ul><li>Unresponsive demand, lumpy supply, difficult to balance them. </li></ul><ul><li>Both consumers and producers seek external interventions that improve price stability. </li></ul>
  7. 7. 5 Price Stabilization Regimes <ul><li>Standard Oil monopoly (< 1911) </li></ul><ul><li>Texas Railroad Commission’s internationally influential pro-rationing of production (>1930s) </li></ul><ul><li>Seven Sisters cartel (Exxon, Shell, British Petroleum, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, and Gulf) (1920s - 1970s) </li></ul><ul><li>OPEC (1960 - present) effective only briefly during the 1970s-80s </li></ul><ul><li>Saudi-American regime (1970s - present) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Political Involvement in Oil <ul><li>Political interest in this economic commodity is not merely cynical—it is also prudent </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions for market transparency, stability </li></ul><ul><li>WW II: “oil not only determined capabilities, but also defined strategic objectives” </li></ul><ul><li>Cold War onwards: ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons diminished oil’s military importance </li></ul><ul><li>Balance of trade, interdependence </li></ul>
  9. 9. Security not the only Rationale <ul><li><WW I, Pursuing profits, Standard Oil persuaded U.S. government to intervene in the internal affairs of several Middle Eastern oil states. </li></ul><ul><li>1917: UK redrew the map of the Middle East in part for administrative convenience. </li></ul><ul><li>1950s-60s: France and USA intervened in oil-rich Viet Nam mostly to slow the spread of communism. </li></ul><ul><li>1960s: oilfields nationalized to return control to local decision makers. </li></ul><ul><li>1973: Western responses to the Arab oil embargo were also a gesture of solidarity with Israel. </li></ul><ul><li>1979: Blockade of Iran in part reflected western disapproval of hostage taking. </li></ul><ul><li>1991: Gulf war a direct response to the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. </li></ul><ul><li>2003: Iraq war also about deposing a dictator who had threatened to use weapons of mass destruction. </li></ul>
  10. 10. U.S. Petroleum Balance 1949-2000
  11. 11. Petroleum Balance of Trade 2001 20 111 Vietnam 55 USA 73 399 Venezuela 100 Jordan 8 45 UK 98 Japan 90 477 Saudi Arabia 100 Iceland 57 3042 Norway 100 Haiti 98 640 Nigeria 95 Germany 85 176 Iran 96 France 14 41 Canada 31 China Oil as % of Export Earnings Oil Exports as % of Consumption Country Oil Imports as % of Consumption Country Exporters Importers
  12. 12. Electricity <ul><li>Supply is capital-intensive, storage is minimal, transmission and distribution are intrusive, price signals have been weak </li></ul><ul><li>Industry sought and received regulated public utility status by 1930s </li></ul><ul><li>Security = adequate & reliable supply </li></ul><ul><li>Security also = protect physical & informational elements </li></ul>
  13. 13. Energy Security <ul><li>Definition of Energy Security </li></ul><ul><li>Imperfect Markets for Oil & Electricity </li></ul><ul><li>Rationales for Governmental Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>The Special Role of Energy Carriers </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Security as a Policy Driver </li></ul>
  14. 14. U.S Energy Policy Rationales I <ul><li>August 30, 1954. President Eisenhower signs the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, opening the way for development of a civilian nuclear power program. </li></ul><ul><li>July 6, 1962. President Kennedy condones a test in Sedan, Nevada as part of the Plowshare program seeking to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. </li></ul><ul><li>January 1, 1969. President Johnson signs the National Environmental Policy Act. </li></ul>
  15. 15. U.S. Energy Policy Rationales II <ul><li>November 7, 1973. President Nixon launches Project Independence, with the goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency by 1980. </li></ul><ul><li>December 22, 1975. President Ford signs the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, extending oil price controls into 1979, mandating automobile fuel economy standards, and authorizing creation of a strategic petroleum reserve. </li></ul>
  16. 16. U.S. Energy Policy Rationales III <ul><li>April 20, 1977. President Carter unveils the first National Energy Plan. </li></ul><ul><li>April 5, 1979. President Carter announces gradual decontrol of oil prices and proposes a windfall profits tax. Subsequently announces a program to increase the nation's use of solar energy, establishes temperature restrictions in nonresidential buildings, proposes an $88 billion decade-long effort to enhance production of synthetic fuels from coal and shale oil reserves. </li></ul>
  17. 17. U.S. Energy Policy Rationales IV <ul><li>July 17, 1981. President Reagan sets free market emphasis to reduce government regulations and subsidies, decontrol of natural gas, research, and nuclear licensing reform. </li></ul><ul><li>April 23, 1985. Beginning Reagan’s second term, he calls for “energy strength” built upon existing “stability and security.” </li></ul><ul><li>March 17, 1987. President Reagan's Energy Security Report outlines Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil. </li></ul>
  18. 18. U.S. Energy Policy Rationales V <ul><li>December 21, 1990. President George H.W. Bush develops strategy and legislation on federal appliance efficiency standards, plus electric and gas utility deregulation. </li></ul><ul><li>April 1994. President Clinton’s plan focuses on industrial competitiveness, energy resources, national security, environmental quality, and innovation. Acts administratively to continue electricity deregulation, support conservation & renewables. </li></ul>
  19. 19. U.S. Energy Policy Rationales VI <ul><li>May 17, 2001. President George W. Bush releases controversial “Cheney” plan, which emphasizes supply-side strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>October 1, 2002. Revision to DOE’s mission following September 11, 2001: “we share a common overarching mission: national security.” </li></ul><ul><li>January 28, 2003. President Bush says: “With a new national commitment…the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” </li></ul>
  20. 20. U.S. Energy Policy Objectives <ul><li>Security improvements (reliability of supply, self-sufficiency, non-proliferation) </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental improvements (climate change, air pollution, water pollution, land damage) </li></ul><ul><li>Economic improvements (reasonable prices, less price volatility, job growth) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Classical Rationales for Governmental Action <ul><li>“ above all, do no harm” </li></ul><ul><li>Improve allocational efficiency (correct market failures like pollution) </li></ul><ul><li>Improve distributional equity (correct gross unfairnesses like freezeouts) </li></ul><ul><li>Improve macro stability (correct structural imbalances like trade deficits) </li></ul><ul><li>Enforce national norms, pursue national objectives, cater to special interests? </li></ul>
  22. 22. Energy Security <ul><li>Definition of Energy Security </li></ul><ul><li>Imperfect Markets for Oil & Electricity </li></ul><ul><li>Rationales for Governmental Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>The Special Role of Energy Carriers </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Security as a Policy Driver </li></ul>
  23. 23. What are energy carriers? <ul><li>Electricity made from coal, methane, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind…. </li></ul><ul><li>Gases (Hydrogen, Methane) made from methane, coal, oil, biofuels, electricity… </li></ul><ul><li>Liquids (Biofuels, Gasoline) made from biostocks, oil… </li></ul>
  24. 24. Full System Efficiencies of Alternative Types of Cars <ul><li>Current technology car with gasoline fueled internal combustion engine </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from methane steam reformer </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from electrolysis via wind farm </li></ul><ul><li>Electric car recharged by wind farm </li></ul>
  25. 25. Current technology car with gasoline fueled internal combustion engine <ul><li>12% losses between oil well and filling station: factor 0.88 </li></ul><ul><li>38% efficiency of engine: factor 0.38 </li></ul><ul><li>20% losses in the automatic transmission between engine and wheels: factor 0.80 </li></ul><ul><li>Full system efficiency = 0.88 x 0.38 x 0.80 = 27% </li></ul>
  26. 26. Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from methane steam reformer <ul><li>12% losses between gas well and reformer: factor 0.88 </li></ul><ul><li>30% losses in reformer from methane to hydrogen: factor 0.70 </li></ul><ul><li>10% losses for compression of hydrogen: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>10% losses for distribution of gaseous hydrogen: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>3% losses for hydrogen transfer: factor 0.97 </li></ul><ul><li>50% for conversion to electricity in fuel cells: factor 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>10% parasitic losses for the hydrogen fuel cell system: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>10% electric losses in the drive train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>Full system efficiency = 0.88 x 0.70 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.97 x 0.50 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 20% </li></ul>
  27. 27. Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from electrolysis via wind farm <ul><li>10% losses between power plant and electrolyzer: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>30% losses for water make-up and electrolysis: factor 0.70 </li></ul><ul><li>10% losses for compression of hydrogen: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>10% losses for distribution of gaseous hydrogen: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>3% losses for hydrogen transfer: factor 0.97 </li></ul><ul><li>50% for conversion to electricity in fuel cells: factor 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>10% parasitic losses for the hydrogen fuel cell system: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>10% electric losses in the drive train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>Full system efficiency 0.90 x 0.70 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.97 x 0.50 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 20% </li></ul>
  28. 28. Electric car recharged by wind farm <ul><li>10% losses between power plant and homes: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>8% losses in small home-based AC/DC battery chargers: factor 0.92 </li></ul><ul><li>20% losses for battery charging and discharging: factor 0.80 </li></ul><ul><li>10% losses in the drive train between battery and wheels: factor 0.90 </li></ul><ul><li>10% bonus for regenerative braking: factor 1.10 </li></ul><ul><li>Full system efficiency = 0.90 x 0.92 x 0.80 x 0.90 x 1.10 = 66% </li></ul>
  29. 29. Full System Efficiencies of Alternative Types of Cars <ul><li>Current technology car with gasoline fueled internal combustion engine = 27% </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from methane steam reformer = 20% </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel cell car operated on gaseous hydrogen from electrolysis via wind farm = 20% </li></ul><ul><li>Electric car recharged by wind farm = 66% </li></ul><ul><li>But energy carriers improve economic efficiency </li></ul>
  30. 30. Valuing H 2 Enerrgy Carrier <ul><li>Hydrogen costs must drop >50% to become competitive </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of avoided oil war? Cost of Iraq war is $100 - $2000 billion, say $200 billion Suppose 50% of war rationale was energy security Suppose one war per decade Decadal cost of U.S. Persian Gulf oil imports is $210 billion So 50% markup on Persian Gulf oil needed to internalize security costs </li></ul><ul><li>Add in avoided health problems from air pollution, say $30 billion per decade, adding about 3% to national oil bill </li></ul><ul><li>Suddenly hydrogen sounds more competitive! </li></ul>
  31. 31. Increased Use of Energy Carriers -- Fit with U.S. Policy Objectives + - + - - Biofuels Decentralized Centralized Conversion : Hydrogen Natural Gas - Gasoline Electricity Economy Environment Security Objective : Carrier :
  32. 32. Increased Use of Energy Carriers -- Fit with U.S. Policy Objectives + - + + + + - Reliability + + - - - - + + + Biofuels + + - Decentralized + + + + Centralized Conversion : + + - + + Hydrogen - - + + - + - Natural Gas - - - - - + - Gasoline + + + - + + Electricity Job Growth Low Price Volatility Reasonable Prices Less Land Damage Less Water Pollution Less Air Pollution Slow Climate Change Non-proliferation Self-sufficiency Economy Environment Security Objective : Carrier :
  33. 33. Increased Use of Energy Sources -- Fit with U.S. Policy Objectives + + - + + Reliability + + - - - + + + Biomass + + + - - + + + + Hydro + + - + + + + + + Wind + + - + + + + + + Solar Photovoltaics + + - - + + + - + Nuclear Fission + - - + + - + - Natural Gas + - - - - + - Petroleum + + + - - - - + + Coal Job Growth Low Price Volatility Reasonable Prices Less Land Damage Less Water Pollution Less Air Pollution Slow Climate Change Non-proliferation Self-sufficiency Economy Environment Security Objective: Source:
  34. 34. Energy Security <ul><li>Definition of Energy Security </li></ul><ul><li>Imperfect Markets for Oil & Electricity </li></ul><ul><li>Rationales for Governmental Intervention </li></ul><ul><li>The Special Role of Energy Carriers </li></ul><ul><li>Energy Security as a Policy Driver </li></ul>
  35. 35. So is it worthwhile to fight for energy security? <ul><li>Energy security is worth something but not everything. </li></ul><ul><li>Back to Yergin: “The objective of energy security is to assure adequate, reliable supplies of energy at reasonable prices and in ways that do not jeopardize major national values and objectives.” </li></ul>
  36. 36. In conclusion…. <ul><li>Security rationale is valid but not very helpful in guiding policy makers to specific choices. </li></ul><ul><li>More important are degree of trust in market mechanisms, preferences regarding painful tradeoffs between environmental protection and diversity of energy supplies, and desire for concentrated control over the energy economy. </li></ul><ul><li>Needed are energy policies that explicitly balance security, economic, and environmental objectives. </li></ul>
  37. 37. For more information <ul><li>http://policy.rutgers.edu /andrews </li></ul>
  38. 38. References <ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Energy in the United States: 1635 – 2000 . Downloaded May 22, 2004 from http://www. eia .doe.gov/ emeu / aer /eh/frame.html . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D. Yergin, “Energy Security in the 1990s,” Foreign Affairs , vol. 67, no. 1, Fall 1988. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>K. Gillespie and C.M. Henry, Introduction, Pp. 1-17 in K. Gillespie and C.M. Henry, eds., Oil in the New World Order . Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1995. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D.A. Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Energy in the United States: 1635 - 2000 , Washington, DC, October 2002, http://www. eia .doe.gov/ emeu / aer /eh/frame.html . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Brief: United States , Washington, DC, April 2004, http://www. eia .doe.gov/ emeu /cabs/usa.html . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , Table 1.5: Merchandise Trade Value, Washington, DC, June 2004, http://www. eia .doe.gov/ emeu /international/ petroleu .html# IntlTrade . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Brief: China , Washington, DC, June 2003, http://www. eia .doe.gov/ emeu /cabs/china.html . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2001 , Washington, DC, April 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of State, Background Notes for Venezuela, Norway, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Vietnam , 2004 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ ei / bgn / </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Natural Resources Canada , Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development , Indicator 1.3 Value of Energy Exports, 2004 http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/es/sdi/English/ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National Statistics, Canada, General Summary of Trade: Trade in Goods , 2004 www.statistics.gov.uk/ StatBase </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D. O’Brien, “Mightier than the Sword,” Harvard International Review , vol. 19, no.. 3, Summer 1997. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , Washington, DC, April 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>K.S. Deffeyes, Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>H. Amirahmadi, “World Oil and Geopolitics to the Year 2010,” Journal of Energy and Development , vol. 21, no. 1, 1996. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>H. Amirahmadi, personal communication on May 4, 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>L.S. Hyman, America’s Electric Utilities: Past, Present and Future , 4 th ed. Arlington, VA: Public Utilities Reports, 1992. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R.F. Hirsh, Technology and Transformation in the American Electric Utility Industry . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>T.J. Brennan, K.L. Palmer, R.J. Kopp, A.J. Krupnick, V. Stagliano and D. Burtraw, A Shock to the System: Restructuring America’s Electricity Industry . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future,1996. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Resources in the U.S. Electricity Supply , Washington, DC, February 1993, http:// tonto . eia .doe.gov/FTPROOT/ renewables /056192.pdf . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Annual 2002 , Washington, DC, November 2003, http://www. eia .doe.gov/ cneaf /solar. renewables /page/rea_data/rea_sum.html . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R.L. Garwin and G. Charpak, Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M.H. Cooper, “Energy Security: How Vulnerable is America’s Energy System?,” CQ Researcher , vol. 12, no. 4, February 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J. Bielecki, “Energy Security: Is the Wolf at the Door?,” Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance , vol. 42, pp. 235-250, 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>H. Harvey, “America and the Global Energy Challenge,” Aspen Institute , June 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Departmental History Website, downloaded on May 2, 2004 from http://ma. mbe .doe.gov/me70/history/1971-1980. htm . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D.A. Yergin and J. Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights . New York: Simon and Scguster, 1998. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M.A. Walls, “U.S. Energy and Environmental Policies: Problems of Federalism and Conflicting Goals,” Pp. 95 – 130 in H.H. Landsberg, ed., Making National Energy Policy . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>P. Lemaitre, “Energy Policy: EU Must Take Charge of its Own Fate,” European Politics , Spring 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A.B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace . Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A.B. Lovins and L.H. Lovins, Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security . Andover, MA: Brick House Publishers, 1982. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D.R. Bohi, “Searching for Consensus on Energy Security Policy,” Pp. 41 – 59 in H.H. Landsberg, ed., Making National Energy Policy . Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962/1982. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R.A. Musgrave, The Theory of Public Finance . New York: McGraw Hill, 1959. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J.M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money . New York: Harcourt Brace, 1936. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B.F. Skinner, Walden Two . New York: Macmillan, 1962. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J.K. Galbraith, Economics and the Public Purpose . New York: Signet, 1973. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>C.E. Cochran, L.C. Mayer, T.R. Carr and N.J. Cayer, American Public Policy: An Introduction , 3 rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J.M. Ogden, “Prospects for Building a Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure,” Annual Review of Energy and Environment , vol. 24, pp. 227-79, 1999. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National Research Council, Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs . Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U. Bossel, “The Hydrogen Illusion: Why Electrons Are a Better Energy Carrier,” working paper available from European Fuel Cell Forum, Morgenstrasse 2F, CH-5452 Oberrohrdorf, Switzerland, 2004a. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Connors, S.R., and C.J. Andrews, “System-wide evaluation of efficiency improvements: Reducing local, regional, and global environmental impacts,” Pp. 775-788 in J. Tester, D. Wood and N. Ferrari, eds., Energy and the Environment in the 21 st Century , Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1991. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Andrews, C.J., and S.R. Connors, S.R., &quot;Existing capacity - The key to reducing emissions,&quot; Energy Systems and Policy , 1992, 15: 211-235. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spotts, P.N. “Capping carbon,” Christian Science Monitor , December 14, 2000. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R. Walker, “Keynote Address—Understanding the Challenge,” IEEE The Hydrogen Economy: Its Impact on the Future of Electricity Conference , Washington, DC, 19 April 2004, www.ieee.org/power/hydrogen . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D.W. Keith and A.E. Farrell, “Rethinking Hydrogen Cars,” Science , vol. 301, 18 July 2003. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M. Hiltzik, “Hydrogen Highway Plans Riding on Misconceptions,” Los Angeles Times , May 6, 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J.J. Romm, “The Hype About Hydrogen,” Issues in Science and Technology , Spring 2004. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technology Program, “National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap,” November 2002, available online at http://www. eere .energy.gov/ hydrogenandfuelcells /pubs.html </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R.B. Shainker, “EPRI Technology Roadmap for the Hydrogen-Electric Economy,” IEEE The Hydrogen Economy: Its Impact on the Future of Electricity Conference , Washington, DC, 20 April 2004, www.ieee.org/power/hydrogen . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>American Physical Society, Panel on Public Affairs, The Hydrogen Initiative , Discussion Paper, Washington, DC, March 2004, downloaded May 21, 2004 from http://www. aps .org/public_affairs/index. cfm . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>C. Kaysen, S.E. Miller, M.B. Malin, W.D. Nordhaus and J.D. Steinbruner, War with Iraq: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives , Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>N. Matsakis and E. Vlanton, Cost of War , June 2004, http:// costofwar .com/ . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2002 , Washington, DC, 2003. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Final Report of the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project , Trenton, NJ, 2003, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njcrp/index.htm </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>J. Rifkin, “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on earth,” IEEE The Hydrogen Economy: Its Impact on the Future of Electricity Conference , Washington, DC, 20 April 2004, www.ieee.org/power/hydrogen . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M.A. Weiss, J.B. Heywood, E.M. Drake, A. Schaefer, and F.F. Au Yeung, On the Road in 2020: A Life Cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies , Energy Laboratory Report #MIT EL 00-003, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 2000. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M.A. Weiss, J.B. Heywood, A. Schaefer, and V.K. Natarajan, Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars , Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Report #MIT LFEE 2003-001 RP, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February 2003. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U. Bossel, “Efficiency of Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Diesel-SOFC-Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles,” working paper available from European Fuel Cell Forum, Morgenstrasse 2F, CH-5452 Oberrohrdorf, Switzerland, 2004b. </li></ul></ul></ul>

×