Our country has not had a real energy policy for decades. We continue to import a greater and greater percentage of the oil we use. Gas prices are at all time highs. We are even beginning to import natural gas, a resource that we have historically been self-sufficient in. We now import about 60 percent of our oil, and it increases every year. The Democrats huff and puff about but do nothing.
In the 2004 Congressional campaign Nancy Pelosi boldly claimed that she had a plan to have the U.S. energy independent within 10 years. The central tenet of her plan was a "Manhattan Project" to discover new types of alternative fuels combined with higher MPG fleet standards and other miscellaneous conservation measures. Of course like most of what Nancy said nothing has come of it. In the absence of any party leadership the Democrat's collective position seems to essentially be to subsidize and promote corn-based ethanol, raise the MPG fleet requirement, and promote conservation.
We absolutely need to promote and reward conservation. But corn-based ethanol is a flawed solution. It takes more energy to create a galleon of ethanol than we get out of it. The diversion of farm production to corn to support ethanol production is reducing farm production of other agricultural commodities such as wheat and cotton. It is a boondoggle of epic proportions.
The result has been rising food prices as there is less corn and wheat for food. Wheat recently reached $7 a bushel! Corn prices have have raised the cost of everything from breakfast cereal to tortillas. Beef is typically "finished" with corn to achieve the best quality. Corn has driven beef prices up as well. So we are subsidizing an energy product that takes more energy to create that it provides while raising everyone's food costs. If you think this makes sense then please post your reasoning.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology continues to be a very difficult problem to solve. Plus, free hydrogen is not an easy to obtain element on an industrial scale. But hopefully this will prove a good solution someday.
All of non-ethanol alternative energy technologies such as wind power, solar and geothermal can only provide a limited amount of our energy needs. But we should fully and aggressively deploy all of these technologies to the extent they are economically viable. But for the foreseeable future they can supplement, but not provide all of our energy needs.
So we will continue to need additional sources of energy for some time. The liberal mantra is no drilling in the U.S., no drilling on the continental shelf, no drilling in ANWR, no new coal, no new nuclear, more regulation for the automotive industry and no new refineries. This means the U.S. is left with no choice but to import increasingly larger amounts of oil from countries that are not our friends. It means that we are hostage to a refining capacity with zero margin for error. It is an economic issue; it is a national security issue. We are transfering vast wealth to other countries because of these liberal lines in the sand.
The GOP has repeatedly attempted to implement a balanced and responsible energy policy that is realistic. The best thinking of the GOP along with my additional ideas includes this balanced approach:
- Expand our nuclear industry. Nuclear power generates zero greenhouse gases. Opponents believe that the radioactive byproduct of these plants is unacceptable. But in the balance, nuclear power is far and away the cleanist way to generate electricity. By opposing nuclear power, liberals simply cause us to burn more coal.
- Drill for oil on the continental shelf. This drilling is targeted for 150 to 200 miles off-shore. New drilling technology is now available making off-shore areas accessible that were beyond our reach even a few years ago. Concerns have been raised about ruining the aesthetics of our coastline. But at 150 miles offshore, this drilling activity will be far beyond the the 12 miles that can be seen on a clear day.
- Drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The actual area needed to exploit this vast reserve is quite small vis a vis the total size of the refuge. No people will ever go there otherwise.
- Expand the use of coal using clean technologies. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. The Powder Basin reserve in Wyoming contains vast fields of easily mined, low sulfur coal. If we want energy independence clean, or at least cleaner, coal has to be part of the solution.
- Add additional refining capacity. This alone will keep gas prices lower. There has not been a new refinery built in the U.S. in 35 years.
- Reduce the number of special gas formulations required during the summer. There are something like 40 different formulations required in various markets, each one tailored to the specific area. The large numbers of different formulations shortens refinery runs and reduces refining throughput. Using some common sense and reducing the number of formulations to, say 10, that would achieve 80 percent of the benefit would help immensely.
- Promote conservation.
- Promote alternative energy that makes economic and common sense. Aggressively deploy new, less expensive solar technologies. Take greater advantage of our country's wind resources.
- Encourage free market solutions to better gas mileage. With $90 oil and $3.50 gas there will be a lot of enterprising efforts to achieve this. The recent surge in hybrid vehicles is a great example of the free market achieving dramatically higher gas mileage.
Each of these has its critics. There is no single or perfect answer. But the liberal position of just ignoring the problem while it gets worse is no solution. Do we really want the leaders of our government to not be able to deal with reality - to not make the "least bad choice"?
The GOP continues to provide this leadership. If the Democrats can't lead, then at least they should allow someone else to develop realistic and balanced policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment