The "I" Word
"Energy independence." It's everybody's favorite buzzword these days. It's a fantasy, points out Robert Bryce on Salon:
America is such a major energy user and the energy market is so complex that we can never be independent. America simply sucks up too much oil (25 percent of world production), too much natural gas, and too much coal to ever cut itself off from the global market. The price for these commodities is set by global market forces like booming economies in China and India, and by the ever-increasing energy needs of citizens everywhere to power their cars, fax machines, computers and air conditioners.In short, there's no silver bullet when it comes to energy. Pretending that there is only obscures the magnitude of the problem. And that problem is enormous. Hydrocarbons of all types are becoming harder to find and more expensive to produce. And more people are vying for the resources that remain. Domestic oil production has been falling since the early 1970s and no matter how large the subsidy or tax break to domestic drillers, that trend cannot be reversed. Given our current energy consumption, the idea that we can mine enough domestic crude to meet our demand is simply fallacious. You'd be hard-pressed to find any diner at the Houston Petroleum Club to say otherwise.
If we continue pretending that we can somehow be independent of these hard truths, it will be that much harder to make the difficult changes that must be made: a strong embrace of efficiency and conservation (particularly in the transportation sector) and a bolder, more comprehensive program to develop renewable and alternative sources of energy.
...We need renewable sources of energy like wind and solar for many reasons. First, they are environmentally friendly: no greenhouse gases or pollutants. Second, the cost of these technologies is falling, and they may soon become competitive with fossil fuels (coal and natural gas). Third, they can reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce electricity and reduce the need for building expensive new power plants.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush has shown no leadership on energy issues, even as big strides are being made in developing alternative sources. One new technology turns infrared light into electricity, dramatically improving the efficiency of existing photovoltaic cells. Wind power continues to grow rapidly, while getting only minor federal subsidies. Other more capital-intensive processes like coal gasification and gas-to-liquids are showing promise. If environmentalists are going to be realistic about America's energy future, they are going to have to get over their long-standing aversion to nuclear power. The Japanese conglomerate, Toshiba, has just introduced a prototype of a micro-nuclear power plant that produces 25 megawatts of power and does so at fairly low cost.
All of these technologies could have roles in America's energy future. But reducing America's energy consumption -- or at the very least, slowing the rate of growth of our fossil fuel consumption -- will take years, barrels of cash, and more than a little bravery in Congress and the White House.
It's time to get started.
Imagine if this (gak!) pretty popular, folksy-wolksy president used his persona to tell people, "Hey, ride a bike, buy a fuel efficient car...do your part." Naw, wouldn't work for the oil interests. "Energy independence," wink, wink. "And pick me up in a battleship-sized SUV."
From the article:
Well, duh, with a capital H. Of course, Bush shows no leadership in the development of alternate energy sources. Whose back pocket do you think he's in???
One of the more astute observations, to be sure. I haven't been this surprised since Boy George came out of the closet.
Patrick, the Goddess Fan at May 4, 2005 9:54 AM
Wind power continues to grow rapidly, while getting only minor federal subsidies.
Well, yeah, it's easy to grow rapidly from nearly nothing.
Wind power won't do it. As it says, nuclear power is the only feasible source of significant energy.
Patrick: Guffawing about "Bush=OilZ!!" ain't gonna change anything. "Alternate" energy sources apart from nuclear power are, in the most plain terms, bullshit in terms of actually supplanting oil. And if he "supported" nuclear power I'm sure you'd change your mind about him, right? Right?
I think the problem here is thinking that the President needs to "lead" anything of the sort. The only thing he could do, really, is ask Congress very nicely to pass legislation changing the regulatory environment. I don't think the Executive has the power (let alone the money, without Congress allocating it) to just Make That Happen.
Sigivald at May 4, 2005 3:41 PM
I'll post this link again to the now-defunct blog of some scientist who works in this field
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/AnewManhattanProject.shtml.
He details why we burn fossil fuels and will for some time.
The most heartbreaking part is when he explains that we Americans probably won't harvest wind on a massive scale in the near future because people think windmills are ugly and don't want them in the backyard.
His satellite/solar power idea is a really good one, but as he notes, the upfront cost is much too prohibitive, and the technology isn't quite there yet.
Whether Bush was pushing for new energy ideas or not, it seems, we still wouldn't have any, which is unfortunate because I really want us to let the midde east nuke itself.
Little ted at May 5, 2005 11:14 AM
Leave a comment