Energy: Our No. 1 challenge

The recent interest in Utica Shale has me recalling a meeting I attended in 2003, during which Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley (the man generally credited with founding nanotechnology) identified the top 10 challenges facing humanity. Number one on his list was energy. Today, nearly 10 years later, the No. 1 challenge facing humanity continues to be developing a cheap, abundant and reliable source of energy to meet the increasing demands of society.

At Youngstown State, our research and educational programs evaluate energy technologies in the context of their alternatives, allowing our graduates to support the community’s energy sector needs. Given the interest in producing gas from the Utica Shale formation, it’s important to review its benefits and drawbacks relative to the alternatives.

Consumption increase

Modern technology has identified three categories of energy production. One of these is nuclear, which was gaining interest until the tsunami in Fukishima, Japan, once again revealed the underlying danger associated with nuclear power plants. The other two choices are fossil or renewable resources. Energy conservation and efficiency also have a role, but energy reduction does not mean energy elimination, and consumption is expected to increase by roughly 20 percent over the next 25 years.

Renewable technologies can be classified into two categories; those producing electricity (solar, wind, hydroelectric) and those derived from biomass. Hydropower is actually the most common renewable source, representing approximately 2.4 percent of the U.S. energy supply. Solar, wind, and geothermal make up less than 1 percent of the total energy supply. For intermittent energy technologies such as wind or solar, an effective energy storage technology is required. And transportation of the energy from where it is produced to where it is needed means the construction of very high voltage transmission lines throughout the country.

Renewable sources such as wind or solar cannot support the transportation sector, which consumes 28 percent of all energy in the U.S., nor can they be used for the production of chemicals and plastics that are ubiquitous in consumer products. Biomass is the only renewable resource that can be reasonably converted to liquid fuels or chemicals. But biomass production comes at a cost. It requires arable land that could otherwise be used for the production of food, and in many areas of the world, results in deforestation as natural areas are converted to cropland.

Fossil resources — oil, coal and gas — are by definition non-renewable, and thus will eventually be depleted. Roughly 84 percent of our domestic energy supply comes from fossil resources. Gasoline produced from crude oil is the primary fuel for the transportation sector. Fifty-one percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. comes from coal-fired power plants. Combustion of fossil resources produces CO2, SO2 and NOx, impacting air quality and causing respiratory illness. Drilling for oil disturbs land and ocean habitats; oil and gasoline spills greatly impact the quality of the water or land or seep into groundwater; and coal is frequently produced through strip mining, during which the mountain surface is removed, permanently altering the landscape.

Greenhouse gas

Natural gas, used by consumers for home heating, is the third major fossil resource. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal and oil, but natural gas is primarily methane, a strong greenhouse gas. Production of natural gas requires clearing of land, and the transport of gas requires an extensive pipeline network. Substantial quantities of water are consumed, and the water returns to the surface contaminated with salts and other minerals, requiring careful treatment or disposal.

All of which brings me back to Smalley’s original proposition, that the production of clean, abundant energy remains humanity’s biggest challenge. All current energy technologies have substantial environmental implications. Natural gas, including gas produced from shale, is no different. There is no reason why it should not be considered among the alternatives required to produce the energy modern society consumes. Since it is unlikely that consumers will relax their dependence on energy resources or be willing to pay greatly increased costs for a dwindling supply, we’re going to need every bit we can get.

Martin Abraham is dean of the College of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics at Youngstown State University. He has had over 70 technical publications and over 100 presentations on energy and sustainability, and has served on national panels for the EPA, the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.