New technologies won't ease energy crunch by '80

The author argues for vigorous programs of energy conservation in all of our economy and society. He does not downgrade efforts to increase the supply of conventional fossil fuel energy sources or to suggest that we should relax our efforts to develop advanced energy technologies. Looking at the energy situation between now and 1980, however, he states that we cannot develop enough conventional energy sources or get enough of the new technologies onstream to keep our economy healthy and provide jobs for the more than 1.5 million people who will be entering the work force each year. Mr. Aspenson cites three reasons why energy supplies cannot be increased to meet demand in this time frame: (1) the tremendous size of the energy requirement; (2) the long lead times required to put even conventional energy sources on stream; and (3) the long lead times required for the new technologies - high Btu gas from coal will require 10 to 15 years, solar electric 20 to 30 years, and efficient and direct solar heat 5 to 25 years. The Minnesota Plan formulated in 1975 to encourage energy conservation is reviewed. In brief, it involves a tax credit of 25 percent for expendituresmore » on plant and equipment related to achieving energy efficiency, plus a same-year write-off. It is, in effect, a loan with a five-year cut-off point. It has an anti-inflationary aspect inasmuch as it will decrease demand and hold down prices. It is not believed the concept will be suitable to meet the nation's entire energy conservation needs, but will be appropriate for the manufacturing process. (MCW)« less