Energy Demand-Energy Supplies

  • V. P. Kenney
  • J. W. Lucey


Just a few years after the U.S. celebrated its first centennial it passed another milestone. In about 1885, coal replaced wood as the nation’s primary energy source. Wood, properly managed, is a renewable resource. Coal is not. Nor are the other energy sources developed and put to use in the last 100 years. Coal, natural gas, petroleum, uranium, thorium, and deuterium are all resources that can be used but once.


Solar Energy Wind Turbine Fission Product Solar Insolation Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Footnotes

  1. 1.
    H. C. Hottel and J. B. Howard, An agenda for energy, Technol. Rev. 74, No. 3 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Executive Office of the President, The National Energy Plan, p. 2, Superintendent of Public Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. H. Romer, Energy: An Introduction to Physics, Appendix K, Freeman, San Francisco (1976). Note that energy is the product of power (kilowatts) and time over which the power is produced or consumed.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Energy consumption by sector is: residential, 19%; commercial, 15.4%; industrial, 39.6%; transportation, 26%.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Wilson, A. P. news release in South Bend Tribune, Feb. 19, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. L. Parsons, Marx and Engles on Ecology, Greenwood Press, Westport (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Time Magazine (Jan. 21, 1978), p. 33, quotes Mr. Hooks: “If Black unemployment is to be reduced, the nation’s economy must grow rapidly. Since that requires more energy, oil and gas prices should be allowed to rise so that companies would have more incentive to step up exploration and output.”Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Executive Office of the President, The National Energy Plan, p. 35, Superintendent of Public Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Commoner, The Closing Circle, pp. 138–175, Bantam Books, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  10. B. Commoner, The Poverty of Power, pp. 6–29, Bantam Books, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    W. Carnahan, B. M. Casper, K. W. Ford, A. Prosperetti, G. I. Rochlin, A. H. Rosenfeld, M. H. Ross, J. E. Rothberg, G. M. Seidel and R. H. Socolow, Efficient Use of Energy: A Physics Perspective, Phys. Today, Aug. 1975, 23–29.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Time Magazine (Sept. 12, 1977), p. 54. Note that it is even more expensive to “retrofit” old homes with insulation than to provide it for new homes.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See, however, an attempt at cost—benefit analysis for the damming of Hell’s Canyon, in C. J. Cicchetti, A Primer for Environmental Preservation: The Economics of Wild Rivers and Other Natural Wonders, pp. 9–14, MSS Modular Publications, New York (1974).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    W. Tucker (Environmentalism and the leisure class, Harper’s,Dec. 1977, pp. 49–56) quotes Thorstein Veblen: “The leisure class is in great measure sheltered from the stress of those economic exigencies which prevail in any modern, highly organized industrial community. The exigencies of the struggle for the means of life are less exacting for this class than for any other; and as a consequence of this privileged position we should expect to find it one of the least responsive of the classes of society to the demands which the situation makes for a further growth of institutions and a readjustment to an altered industrial situation. The leisure class is the conservative class.”Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    R. H. Wentorf, Jr., Formation and Consumption Rates of Major Energy Sources, Power Systems Laboratory Report 77CRD005 (March 1977), p. 5.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    R. Axtmann, Environmental impact of a geothermal power plant, Science 187, 795–803 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    H. Kelly, Photovoltaic power systems: A tour through the alternatives, Science 199, 634–643 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    A. F. Heldebrandt and L. L. Vant-Hull, Power with heliostats, Science 197, 1139–1146 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    M. Wolf, Solar energy utilization by physical methods, Science 184, 382–386 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    W. G. Pollard, The long—range prospects for solar energy, Am. Sci. 64, 424–429 (1976).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    J. M. Fowler, Energy and Environment, p. 295, McGraw-Hill, New York (1975).Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    National Academy of Engineering—National Research Council, Abatement of Sulfur Oxide Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. (1970).Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    C. F. Baes, H. E. Goeller, J. S. Olson, and R. M. Rotty, Carbon dioxide and climate: The uncontrolled experiment, Am. Sci. 65, 310–320 (1977).Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    M. Stuiver, Atmospheric carbon dioxide and carbon reservoir changes, Science 199, 253–258 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. G. M. Woodwell, R. H. Whittaker, W. A. Reimers, C. E. Likems, C. C. Delwiche, and D. D. Botkim, The biota and the world carbon budget, Science 199, 141–146 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    B. Commoner Poverty of Power,p. 69, Bantam Books, (1977) recalls the classic studies of cancer of the scrotum among London chimney sweeps, in 1775, later traced to certain chemicals in coal tar and soot.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    R. Wilson and W. J. Jones, Energy, Ecology, and the Environment, p. 203, Academic Press, New York (1974).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    M. L. Levin, W. Haenszel, B. E. Carroll, P. R. Gerhardt, V. H. Handy, and S. C. Ingraham, II, Cancer incidence in urban and rural areas of New York State, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 24, 1243 (1960).Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    P. Buell and J. E. Dunn, Jr., Relative impact of smoking and air pollution on lung cancer, Arch. Environ. Health, 15, 291 (1967).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    W. Winkelstein, Jr., S. Kantor, E. W. Davis, C. S. Maneri and W. E. Mosher, The relationship of air pollution and economic status to total mortality and selected respiratory system mortality in men, Arch. Environ. Health, 14, 162 (1967).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    L. D. Zeidberg, R. J. M. Horton, and E. Landau, The Nashville air pollution study, Arch. Environ. Health, 15, 225 (1967).Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    M. King Hubbert, The energy resources of the earth, Sci. Am. 224, 60–70 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. M. King Hubbert, Also available as Energy and Power, pp. 31–40, Freeman, San Francisco (1971).Google Scholar
  34. 31.
    J. I. McBrade, R. F. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blance, Radiological impact of airbom effluents of coal and nuclear plants, Science 202, 1045–1050 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 32.
    WASH-1400, Reactor Safety Study, An Assessment of Accident Risks: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Oct. 1975).Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    E. J. Olson, Close encounters of the zeroth kind, Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 49, 6–13 (1978).Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    Nuclear Power Issues and Choices, Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Mass. (1977).Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    D. J. Rose and R. K. Lester, Nuclear power, nuclear weapons and international stability, Sci. Am. 238, 45–57 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. P. Kenney
    • 1
  • J. W. Lucey
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations