Appearing in October before the Joint Economic Committee's Subcommittee on Automation and Energy Resources, two RFF staff members presented statements dealing with past changes in the main energy sources of the United States, and prospective changes between now and 1975.
Bruce C. Netschert, in discussing future supplies, made use of new perspectives and concepts of his own devising, most notably a generalized overall "resource base" and an "ultimate reserve," which concepts combine considerations of total and potential mineral stores with that of advancing technologies in mining and transit. For example:
"Many of the oil and gas discovery wells of today would have been classified as dry holes as recently as a decade or so ago … since techniques for developing them did not exist.
"Similarly, some coal companies now own coal reserves that are being mined by the recently developed auger technique. A decade or more ago this same coal would not have been counted as reserves … because it was too deeply buried to strip mine it and too shallow to mine by underground methods …
"One area of rapid recent technological advance is strip mining, in which productivity per man-day currently averages about 22 tons versus 9 tons in underground mining … The recent development of supergiant shovels, together with such refinements as the bucket-wheel excavator [are such that] some observers voice concern over the adequacy of 'strippable reserves.'
"But the new technology itself demonstrates how open-ended these 'reserves' are. Current equipment can handle overburden up to 120 feet in thickness. Only a few years ago 80 feet was the maximum.
"But the greatest prospects lie underground. Here a true technological revolution is under way in the form of a continuous mining machine. Introduced around 1950, the continuous miner now accounts for approximately 20 percent of total underground production … The reduction in manpower … and the consequent rise in productivity of the manpower retained, has been dramatic.
"It is not in modes of extraction alone that recent technological changes may conceivably put coal back into the running as a competitor to the other fossil fuels, liquid and gaseous; for now, by locating power plants close to the mouths of mines coal may be 'sent by wire,' Netschert indicated. Besides:
"There looms on the horizon the threat of unconventional transport means. The successful operation of the first commercial coal pipeline … has generated interest in projects of this kind; and the long distance conveyor belt for coal remains a practical possibility."
The historical record, Sam H. Schurr pointed out, brings out the flexibility of the energy resources base of the United States in meeting the country's needs for fuel and power during a period of rapid growth and economic transformation.
From statistics going back to 1850, it can be seen that coal was first among energy sources in the United States for only a relatively short period—at least compared to all other industrial countries. "Coal contributed more than 50 percent of the total annual energy supply for about half a century, roughly from 1885 to 1940. It is interesting, too, in this longer perspective to observe that the rise of liquid and gaseous fuels and the displacement of coal roughly parallel rise of coal and the decline of wood in the overall energy supply half a century earlier … Between 1850 and 1895, coal increased from 9 to 65 percent; wood declined from 91 to 30 percent. Between 1910 and 1955, oil and gas increased from 9 to 65 percent; coal declined from 77 to 29 percent. Thus within the past century the composition of the US fuel and power base changed twice so markedly that the relative importance of the principal energy sources was completely reversed.
In discussing total energy consumption, Schurr compared its historical growth with that of GNP to see whether the relationship between energy consumption and the nation's total output of goods and services has been steady. This comparison indicated that although the historical behavior of energy consumption per unit of GNP is marked by great diversity, it also reveals "what appears to be a definite pattern, consisting of two long-period swings divided by the 1910-20 decade … The record between 1880 and 1910 is one of persistent increases in the input of energy per unit of GNP; between 1920 and 1955 the record tends to be one of persistent decline in the ratio of energy to GDP."
The remarks of Mr. Schurr and Mr. Netschert were in some part advance excerpts from a book lately completed by several members of the Energy and Minerals Research Group, headed by Mr. Schurr. The work, entitled "Energy in the American Economy: 1850-1975," will be published by The Johns Hopkins Press late this year. The full statements the two staff members made before the Subcommittee were recently reprinted by RFF as "Reprint Number 14."
A version of this article appeared in print in the February 1960 issue of Resources magazine.
