Rob Day | July 14, 2008 at 3:45 AM

Opening up a time capsule from 1981

I recently took ownership of a copy of the 1981 National Geographic special report on energy: "Facing up to the problem, getting down to solutions." It's turned out to be a fascinating look back at what's changed -- and more frequently, what hasn't changed -- over the past 27 years. The magazine focuses on energy supply issues, and while climate change is mentioned in passing, it's the high cost of energy that's "the problem" referenced in the report's title. Most striking is how much space is devoted to the very same technology development efforts that we're still working on today. On the one hand, it's encouraging to see the clear progress that's been made in the maturation of key technologies like solar and vehicle/ building efficiency since the writing of the report. On the other hand, it's sobering to realize just how few of the report's predictions have come to fruition. $85 per barrel oil by 1985 ("conservative estimates", but of course way off) was expected to drive significant adoption of coal-based synfuels in particular, and the report's authors also expected domestic oil production to increase. Nuclear was supposed to play a much bigger role in supplying electricity... So while they expected energy imports to flatten, they were expecting other technologies (including green power) to step up much more than actually happened. But it's hard to blame the report's authors -- after all, they were working off of predictions from the US Department of Energy! I've made a chart comparing their predictions of the U.S.'s 2000 energy mix with how things actually turned out...

Of course, this won't be a surprise to anyone who's been observing energy issues in the U.S. over the past few decades. So what's much more fun is to see early mentions of technologies we care about now:

• In their section on vehicles, they explain how battery-powered electric motors will soon start to be integrated into cars, perhaps "paired with small combustion engines in hybrid systems -- electric power for low speeds, combustion for highway cruising." And of course, "efficiency may also be increased by using flywheels to equalize power demand on batteries."

• Wilson Turbopower's Bruce Anderson, from his days as a solar lobbyist, is quoted as predicting that by 1985 homeowners will begin putting panels of solar cells on south-facing roofs and walls.

• "Energy efficiency and conservation are all-important from now on," the report's authors declare. This was, of course, right after sweaters became props and right before cheap energy made conservation nothing more than a "personal virtue."

• Nuclear fusion is described as "the ultimate answer to the energy problem"... but the report's authors acknowledge that "commercial fusion will not come before the year 2000." Wind power, meanwhile, merits almost zero attention -- except for a cool picture of a partially wind-powered Japanese oil tanker ship. "A number of large wind turbines are already in the experimental testing or development stages," the authors note. "But it would take 30,000 large turbines and thousands of smaller ones to supply 10 percent of the nation's electrical power needs by the year 2000."

• Regarding uranium-based fission power, "the question is not can we, but will we."

Fascinating stuff. But sobering to note that the current fervor around clean energy sounds a whole lot like the attitudes felt 27 years ago. The big differences, of course, are that a) many of the technologies really have matured quite a bit and gotten a lot more cost-effective; b) high energy prices now are driven not only by unrest in the Middle East but also by challenges in supply ("peak oil", etc) and environmental limitations (eg, climate change); and c) clean energy is now a big business with heavy economic players making big bets on its success. So no, I don't think the "clean energy bust" of the Reagan years are about to be repeated. The differences are big ones. But sobering to note the similarities, nonetheless.