Most of us in the energy industry have figured we could put together a better all-around energy picture than those Washington politicians or environmental extremists. Well, Chevron gives us a chance to try.

Just go to www.chevron.com and click on the note toward the top of the page that says, “This is your city. How will you power it? Play Energyville.”

Here’s the challenge. Provide enough power to meet the energy needs for a city of 3.9 million people and keep them prosperous, secure and living in a clean environment. The company also says the implications of the energy decisions you make for your city (you get to name it) in 2015 are based on current lifestyles and the projected energy demands and costs for developing countries throughout North America, Europe and Asia.

In the interest of protecting my lack of expertise, let’s go through the guided play version. Drag nuclear power into the graphic of the city once to provide 13% of the needed power, gas twice for 25%, petroleum twice for 25%, hydro once for 12%, coal once for 13% and solar once for 12%. That results in medium impacts on the economy, the environment and security and an energy management score of 245,536,393 (higher is better). So far, so good.
Next, there’s a chance to reduce energy use. Let’s choose option one for moderate conservation and low-cost energy measures leading to a 2% decrease in economic impact, a 4% decrease in environment impact and a 4% drop in security impact. Not bad. Other options are no action and an aggressive conservation plan.

Next come the unforeseen events. A nuclear accident in 2009 raises concerns. It also raises the economic impact 1.5%, the environmental impact 0.6% and the security impact 2%.
A water rights conflict in 2012 increases economic impact 0.8%, environmental impact 0.6% and security impact 0.2%.

By 2015, people still worry about global warming, lack of energy diversification and high costs. Security of supply still is a problem. On the positive side, innovation is expected to lower the cost of providing electricity from solar power by 54%, by biomass by 29% and by wind by 26%. Uh-oh, the energy management score has slipped to 242,740,649.

Now, there’s a chance to see what the decision made to get the city to 2015 will have on energy supplies in 2030.

By 2015, the city is only 67% powered, so players must add more power. Vehicles still need to get around. Let’s try petroleum twice to raise the power supply to 83%, natural gas once to get to 92% and wind once to reach 100% power.

The economic impact still is moderate, but environmental impact and security impact are high. The energy management score has climbed to 525,055,559.

Next step; option one again for a moderate level of conservation. That increases economic impact by 2%, but it lowers environmental and security impact by 7% each.

Here come more unplanned events. Additional applications for wind power by 2017, such as desalination, add value at lower cost. Economic impact drops 0.3% and environmental and security impacts each fall 0.2%.

In 2022, a three-year, widespread drought limits power from hydro. The city’s economic impact increases 0.4%, environmental impact rises 0.6% and security impact climbs 1.1%. The energy management score now stands at 525,816,090.

Choose a profile. Let’s see. Country: United States. Gender: male. Organization: corporation. Field: energy. Final score in 2030: 523,229,421. Ouch. Other people with the same profile got an average score of 632,247,754.

They used less coal, petroleum and gas, the same amount of nuclear and more hydro, wind, biomass, hydrogen and shale oil. Hydrogen and shale oil are only available after 2015. The environmentally friendly weighting of sources helped their environmental and security impacts, but they probably suffered in economic impact.

The sample choices made above, which started now and continued in 2015 to the final score in 2030, landed this player in 54,508th place among the 57,628 people who had played to that point.

Darn. Now what? Play again and try to get a better score? Or, challenge a friend to see who can reach the best energy future.

The Economist Group prepared the interactive Energyville game for Chevron, and it’s a good one.

It’s not dead-on accurate, but it does start people thinking about the effects of different energy decisions on the future. For example, that three-year drought certainly hurt hydro power, but it might have had an even greater impact on biomass, particularly for a person living in Brazil where biomass is a big factor. Wasn’t it a long-term drought that forced Brazil to decide to depend more on Bolivian gas and less on Brazilian hydro power?

Try the game. Challenge a son, daughter or neighbor. See if it doesn’t generate some changes in thinking. Let Chevron know its educational efforts are appreciated.