Ask a conservative what he thinks about alternative energy, and you'll probably get a snort of derision. Oh sure, he'll give you the song-and-dance that it's good to have windmills and solar panels around, but they'll never make a real dent in what we need – which is oil, and more of it...as if we can drill our way to energy independence. But if certain interests have their way, America will never be energy-independent.
First, let's make the case that alternative energy is not only doable, but economically sensible:
Solar power:
• Today 2% of Germany’s power is supplied by solar (17% of German homes are solar-powered), and if the country follows current trends, it will be 20 percent by 2020. This is despite the fact that Germany is not exactly known as a mecca for sun-lovers. The energy utilities are required by law to purchase any excess energy that solar-powered homes make...which means that there are a lot of homes in Germany that are making a profit from solar power.
• Last year a solar cell was developed that was more efficient than is the current design of nuclear power plants. The efficiency of nuclear reactors is limited to around 33 percent, because water can be heated to only a certain temperature and only a certain amount of heat can be taken out of water. Boeing – yes, Boeing – hopes to introduce their high-efficiency C3MJ+ solar cells around the globe as early as January, 2011. The cells are able to convert a whopping 39.2% of sunlight into electricity.
Wind power:
• Currently, In 2010, power generated by wind comprised 15.4% of all electricity generated in Iowa.
Nuclear power:
• A new design for nuclear fuel rods (from solid to hollow tubes) has been shown to increase power output of pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants by 50%. This isn't easily implemented as it sounds, for one of the major factors of the design of a PWR is to nearly eliminate – not just minimize, but to totally eliminate if possible – low-flow areas in the piping where radioactive particles (crud) may collect – and if the fuel rods are hollow, then that's more flow-killing surface area that has to be considered. But the concept is proven, and all that remains is (ugh!) the engineering.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - totaliberal
Sad but true... There are too many hidden ,and not so hidden, interests in keeping oil as the main energy supply worldwide.
I don't think the electric car is the perfect solution to lower oil dependency though, as we do not have enough clean energy sources to offset the increase in consumption its generalization would cause. We would end up burning more natural gas to compensate... I think its hydrogen-powered cars who will have a chance in doing so; but last time I checked Shell was buying hydrogen research start-ups.I suppose just to bury them until we run out of oil...
The power of oil companies is so widespread that it would be naive to think they will easily allow alternative energies to take off.
Didn't know about Saudi Arabia being a stockholder in Fox News, that sheds some light...
2 - Glenn Contrarian
My compliments and gratitude to the editor - I saw a couple good changes - thanks!
3 - RJ
Obama's energy policy:
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them."
Democrat Senator blasts Obama's de facto offshore drilling moratorium
Cash-for-clunkers was a total wreck
Coming soon: $5.00 per gallon gas
Obama Energy Secretary wants higher gas prices
Democrat Congressman: "Obama is completely uninformed about the oil and gas industry" ... his proposals would increase "the nation’s dependence [on] energy from foreign sources."
A couple of additional points: Ending tax breaks for oil companies is, in effect, a tax increase. And tax increases that are aimed at "evil corporations" are pretty much always passed on to the consumer. So Obama's plan will simply raise prices at the pump even higher.
Also, Obama refuses to allow drilling in ANWR, a gigantic wasteland of lichens and tundra in northern Alaska. There is a shitload of oil up there, and only a tiny portion of ANWR needs to be opened up for exploration and development. Many thousands of jobs could be created practically overnight if Obama would allow drilling up there, and the people of Alaska support it.
4 - RJ
Oh yeah, and Obama wants to develop BRAZIL's offshore energy reserves, so that American consumers can buy it from them. How exactly does that reduce our dependency on foreign oil? It would seem to do the opposite.
5 - RJ
More:
This PDF from the Energy Information Administration shows that solar power is much, much more expensive than coal or nuclear or geothermal or hydroelectric. Even coal power plants with expensive carbon capture and sequestration technology are much more cost-effective than solar power.
Solar power plants also take up huge chunks of land: 6,000 to 12,000 acres for 1000 Megawatts. So where to build them? Well, the desert sounds like a good idea. Slight problem: The environmentalists who claim to be supportive of solar frequently sue to prevent it from actually being used. For instance, the Sierra Club sued to prevent a major solar energy project (Calico Solar Project) from being built in the Mojave Desert. This project could have supplied enough energy for nearly 200,000 homes, but unfortunately it might, maybe, possibly, harm the endangered Desert Tortoise. So it doesn't look like the project will be approved.
As former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once said: "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don’t want you to put it anywhere ... I don’t know whether this is ironic or absurd, but, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it."
That's just one example, of course. There are others, and not all of them have to do with solar. So there is some hypocrisy among self-described "green" types who demand we stop using fossil fuels while also making sure that alternatives can't get approved.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
And there goes RJ with strawmen, obfuscations, and a gaping lack of understanding of what he's talking about.
1 - "Cap and Trade". The aim of cap-and-trade was NOT "energy independence", but the mitigation of anthropomorphic global warming. Of course you're sure that 98% of the world's climatologists are wrong and that your local right-wing evangelical preacher knows better, that it's all some vast left-wing conspiracy.
2 - bankrupting coal-powered plants. Again, this was NOT about energy independence, but about global warming...and we're already seeing the worldwide effects of global warming...not that you'll accept them, no matter how obvious they are to those who actually listen to scientists. Oh, wait - scientists have all been bribed by the Left to lie about it, right?
3 - offshore drilling moratorium. Oh, I see - when Big Oil, through their own refusal to follow regulations (the government's and their own), causes the biggest oil spill in American history, which causes oil spills across several states, costing those states untold billions in tourism and seafood industry dollars, it's WRONG to tell the industry to stand down for a year so we can make sure there won't be a SECOND mishap. Nah, who cares about the economies of the southern states - we must protect Big Oil! They're not making enough profit! (never mind that they're making record profits now)
4 - Cash-for-Clunkers was a 'total wreck'? Gee whiz, Car and Driver magazine said that they were at first skeptical of the program, "But the program’s been much more successful than anyone anticipated." It seems that the nation's car manufacturers would disagree with you too. But don't let any of this stop you from believing the very worst about Obama, now, because he does nothing right and everything wrong...even when the hard data says otherwise....
5 - $5/gallon gas. Ah. So...the speculators who caused the last spike in gas prices (which lasted much longer than this one) are not at all at fault this time, I suppose. Nah...just blame Obama - that makes it so much easier for you to put a name and a face to hate....
6 - Obama secretary wants higher gas prices. Well, if you would actually READ your own reference, you'd find that Chu did not say that he WANTS higher gas prices, but that the simple rules of supply and demand ensure that we should EXPECT higher prices. Furthrmore, America has some of the cheapest gas among all first-world democracies...and if the Saudi prince has his way, it will STAY that way so that we can remain hooked on foreign oil! Did you not see that he said exactly that in my article???? He, like you, does NOT want to see America to develop alternative energies.
So whose side are you on? The side of the Saudi prince who WANTS us to have "cheap" oil, who WANTS America to stay hooked on foreign oil by NOT developing alternative energy? Or the side of the Obama administration who wants us to develop alternative energy so that we CAN eventually become energy independent...just like other first-world democracies are doing right now????
7 - Obama's uninformed about gas and oil industry Ah. Dan Boren, the "Blue Dog Democrat. Here's something that the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Politifact.com had to say about Rep. Boren. Even better, do you know what industry is his biggest campaign contributor? BIG OIL!!!! If you'll check, Mr. Boren has been bought by Big Oil, since the oil industry PAC's donated more than three times as much money to his campaign than any other PAC. Pay some guys enough and they'll say anything you want them to say - just like the 2% of climatologists who deny global warming, most of whom are in the employ of - ahem! - Big Oil.
Sooo...RJ - when you know what you're talking about, please come back and let us know.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
RJ -
Oh yeah, and Obama wants to develop BRAZIL's offshore energy reserves, so that American consumers can buy it from them. How exactly does that reduce our dependency on foreign oil? It would seem to do the opposite.
Is Brazil a big supporter of Islamic terrorists? No. Is Saudi Arabia? Yes.
But don't let that stop you from hating Obama, now....
8 - Leroy
"Drill baby drill" would have the (seemingly) paradoxical effect of increasing our dependency on foreign oil!
"How can that be", you might ask. "Shouldn't it decrease our dependence by supplying more domestic oil to domestic markets?"
Aye, there's the rub! It doesn't effectively go to domestic markets. In fact 80% will go to foreign markets. The net effect of the USA drilling more oil will only be 20% to the US and 80% to foreigners!
In the Real World of oil economy, OIL IS FUNGIBLE! Remember that. Write it on a piece of paper and tape it to your gas cap so you read it every time you fill up. Being FUNGIBLE means that any barrel of oil is treated the same as any other barrel of oil (except for some small details of pricing associated with 'sweetness' and transportation). Therefore, a barrel mined in the USA is economically no different from a barrel mined in Brazil. All the oil goes into one big virtual pool of oil, and disbursements are made from there. The new oil we mine will go into that pool and lose it's US origination identity. All the oil we buy and consume comes out of that big pool.
The actual barrel of oil that we use will probably originate in the US or Canada, but that's the consequence of purely economic and convenience factors, NOT geographic sovereignty. We do NOT get first shot at US mined oil, it might go anywhere, but, since oil is fungible, and foreigners consume 80% of ALL oil, it will probably go to foreigners.
That's the way the oil market works when you deal with the Big Boys instead of your dreams and fantasies.
So it's a bad deal on the face of it. After all, foreigners will (effectively) get 80% of the oil that we despoil our environment to mine.
The crude oil market is an Economists classical Free Market which has a large number of suppliers, none of whom is big enough to dominate the market (you can write that on another scrap of paper).
And since we in the USA produce such a small fraction of total world production (about 6%, IIRC) our generosity in contributing more "drill baby drill" oil into the international pool is insignificant, so increasing the Supply will have trivial effect on the Demand price. Foreigners will not thank us for our generosity and small domestic price drops will disappear into the market noise.
But it gets worse! For now we are selling our valuable underground oil resources at TODAYS BARGAIN PRICES and depleting the reserves we will need in the future as prices increase and/or national security requirements demand. Bereft of our oil reserves we are easy prey for predatory foreign blackmailers! We have become MORE DEPENDENT on foreign oil!
How did we get hornswoggled into such a 'bad' deal?
We created it, that's how! And we got here by shooting and invading, fighting wars, bribing foreigners, and even bribing Americans, including any number of US politicians. Because it works to our advantage. (And it can work to advantage of other peoples, too, just as David Ricardos Relative Economic Advantage predicted 200 years ago.)
It will continue to work to our advantage as long as we do smart things, like consume Other Peoples cheap oil, instead of dumb things.
"Drill baby Drill" is Dumb Baby Dumb.
As for oil companies subsidies, just remember that International Capital is liquid: anyone can invest capital anywhere. That's why oil companies ownership is 60% foreign investors: it's a better deal for foreigners than Americans. Especially when foolish Americans are willing to subsidize oil companies with their tax money while 60% of the benefit goes to foreigners. What a great deal! For foreigners.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
And RJ -
As to renewable energy being more expensive than fossil fuels, you're absolutely right! In the SHORT TERM - the next couple decades - it would be FAR cheaper to just drill, baby, drill! And the Saudi prince (who is the second-largest shareholder of Fox News) wants to keep it just that way!
But which is more important? The short term of the next couple decades? Or the LONG term of the next few generations? Better yet, ask yourself why it is that China is now striving harder than anyone else in the world to develop renewable energy?
1 - "Peak Oil". I'm not sure if you realize this, but we do NOT have an infinite amount of oil on the planet. Is it better to just keep drilling until it's almost gone, and THEN say to ourselves, "Hey! We gotta do something else!" Or is it better to develop and put into place the renewable energies NOW so we don't have to panic THEN and watch our economy crumble? Hm?
2 - America does NOT have enough oil to become energy-independent. As long as we keep slurping up oil wherever we can get it, we'll be buying from the Middle East...JUST LIKE THE SAUDI PRINCE WANTS. And guess what part of the world most Islamic terrorists come from? And who finances them? Hm?
3 - Using the same website you used, I found something interesting:
About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasolinethat does not contain ethanol. Most of the retail gasoline now sold in the U.S. contains about 10% ethanol by volume. Under international agreement, CO2 from ethanol and other biofuels are not counted at the tailpipe, so burning a gallon of gasoline with 10% ethanol produces about 17.68 pounds of CO2.
About 22.38 pounds of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of diesel fuel. It is possible to buy biodiesel fuel in some States. Burning a gallon of “B10” (diesel fuel containing 10% biodiesel by volume) results in emission of about 20 pounds of CO2.
And here's the chemistry behind why burning gasoline causes so much CO2.
Now think about this REAL hard, RJ - there's a HALF BILLION CARS on the road every day throughout the world...and I can personally tell you that in the third world, there's no "emissions standards" like here in America. If each car uses a 15-gal. tank of gas a week - some do more, some less - that's something like THREE-POINT-NINE BILLION TONS OF CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year. Do the math for yourself!
But of course you think that anthropomorphic global warming is a myth, and no amount of hard data can make you think otherwise. Just keep on thinking to yourself that 'drill-baby-drill' is a lot better for America than weaning ourselves off the terrorist-funding - ahem, excuse me, the very nice people in the white turbans who are selling you that oil really cheap!
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Hm. 3.9 billion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere every year, just from cars. I need to write another article....
11 - RJ
Obama opposes drilling in ANWR. Obama has halted much drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But Obama supports drilling in Brazil so that Americans can then buy that foreign oil from them.
Republicans support drilling in ANWR. Republicans support ending the de facto moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And Republicans were appalled by Obama's comments in Brazil.
Glenn's conclusion: Republicans want the US dependent on foreign oil! Some Saudi guy owns a small percentage of News Corp., and News Corp. owns Fox News, so that proves it!
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
12 - RJ
Glenn writes, somewhat hysterically: "Well, if you would actually READ your own reference, you'd find that Chu did not say that he WANTS higher gas prices..."
What Chu is on record as actually saying: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
Liberalism is a cognitive deficit.
13 - Dr Dreadful
And Republicans were appalled by Obama's comments in Brazil.
Republicans are "appalled" by Obama's comments by default. It's their job.
Demonstrates nothing, proves nothing - just like most of your drive-by link dumps.
14 - RJ
As for "Global Warming/Global Climate Change," there has not been significant warming in over a decade, despite rising emissions of carbon dioxide. See the BBC. You can engage in all the "appeal to authority" logical fallacies that you want, but this remains true.
Another thing that remains true is that none of the projections of the "climate scientists" - who you apparently worship like modern-day Delphic oracles - predicted a decade-long pause in global warming. Which means the models they based their projections on are broken. Which means their premises were wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.
There's no question that when you pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we have been doing over the last 150 years or so, there's going to be an effect. It's just that the effects predicted by the "experts" keep turning out wrong, and their claims continue to be shown as wildly exaggerated and alarmist. Take Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore's Oscar-winning "documentary" that was so misleading and dishonest that it was thrown out of British public schools. And the "ClimateGate" emails scandal. And the numerous "flaws" in the IPCC report. And etc.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
On ANWR -
If you'll look at the numbers, ANWR - if fully developed and used ONLY for America (and it would NOT be, but instead sold on the open market), it would supply all of America's needs...for about five hundred days.
That's it - not even two years...even given the FALSE perception that all the oil would be used for America. And then what?
Read up on peak oil, willya? Unless you think that Earth does indeed have an infinite supply of oil....
16 - Dr Dreadful
What Chu is on record as actually saying: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
You got a link to that actual interview, RJ, rather than just a blog that quotes from a Wall Street Journal article that quotes from the interview?
17 - RJ
BREAKING NEWS: Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and Triton are also experiencing "global warming." I demand Congressional hearings to get to the bottom of this, although I think we all know Big Oil is to blame...and stupid Americans with their gigantic SUVs.
18 - RJ
DD:
Here ya go.
Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.
"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
RJ -
And ANY statistician will tell you that a one- or two-year change does NOT a trend make. One or two years out of an overall trend means little or nothing in the big picture!
Here's from a site that's a bit more science-oriented than the BBC, dated 1/14/2011 (yours was from 2009):
NASA’s announcement this year - that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record - made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?
Not all that much, emphasizes James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. In the GISS analysis, for example, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 0.01°C (0.018 °F), a difference so small that the temperatures of these two years are indistinguishable, given the uncertainty of the calculation.
Meanwhile, the third warmest year -- 2009 -- is so close to 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007, with the maximum difference between the years being a mere 0.03°C, that all six years are virtually tied.
Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. “Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said."
Now YOUR source listed 1998 as the warmest year. The article continues on:
One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses - from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office - a situation that can generate confusion.
For example, while GISS previously ranked 2005 warmest, the Met Office listed 1998 warmest. The discrepancy helped fuel the misperception that findings from the three groups vary sharply or contain large amounts of uncertainty. It also fueled the misperception that global warming stopped in 1998.
“In reality, nothing could be further from the truth,” said Hansen. Global temperatures have continued to rise steadily. “The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.
It takes courage to admit when you're wrong, RJ - I know, because I've publicly admitted error several times on BC - but the scientific evidence is clearly against global-warming deniers. The choice is up to you - do you stick with the people who hate Obama as much as you do? Or do you stick with the people with scientific fact on their side?
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Okay, fine, I was wrong - Chu wants us to have higher gas prices like most of the rest of the world.
Why? Because that's one way to help wean us off foreign oil...which is what Chu said in so many words, isn't it? As long as we have cheap oil, we will NEVER wean ourselves off the Saudi Arabian teat.
And what did the Saudi prince say? He WANTS for oil prices to be low so that we will REMAIN addicted to Saudi oil...
...and the terrorists rejoice!
21 - Dr Dreadful
As for "Global Warming/Global Climate Change," there has not been significant warming in over a decade
Wrong.
It's just that the effects predicted by the "experts" keep turning out wrong
Wrong.
Take Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore's Oscar-winning "documentary" that was so misleading and dishonest that it was thrown out of British public schools.
Wrong.
And the "ClimateGate" emails scandal.
Wrong.
And the numerous "flaws" in the IPCC report.
Wrong.
You wanna stop now, RJ, or keep the vacuous talking points coming?
22 - RJ
15:
Glenn, no one has suggested that ANWR by itself would provide complete and total energy independence for the US. We haven't suggested that because it's not true. Nice straw man though.
Here's a thought: Drill in ANWR. Drill offshore again. Build more refineries. Build more nuclear power plants (that aren't located on major fault lines). Tell the Sierra Club to go fuck themselves and build some solar power projects. Tell the Kennedys to go fuck themselves and build some wind farms (Google "Cape Wind"). Invest in alternative energy resources, including fanciful stuff like cold fusion. Invest in "clean coal" and liquid coal and oil shale research.
And then maybe, hopefully, over time, we will become energy independent, and renewable alternative energy resources will replace fossil fuels.
Deal?
23 - Dr Dreadful
RJ (@ #18):
No, that's the WSJ piece that quotes from the interview. I've seen it.
I'd like to read the interview itself.
For some context.
You know, that thing you wish didn't exist.
24 - RJ
19:
Glenn wrote: "And ANY statistician will tell you that a one- or two-year change does NOT a trend make."
Another excellent straw man, Glenn. I didn't say a year or two trend. I said a decade or more.
And incidentally, you alarmists like to cherry-pick your start and end dates when creating global warming graphs. If you start in the 1970s, then yeah, there was a lot of warming from the 70s to the late 90s. But there was a cooling trend for a few decades prior to the 70s (which is why the climate alarmists were screaming about "global cooling" back then).
But if you start during the Medieval Warm Period, there has not been much, if any, warming since then. There was the Medieval Warm Period, then the "Little Ice Age," and then the overall warming trend over the last couple of centuries.
What caused the Medieval Warm Period? SUVs? Coal-powered plants? And why did it get cool again all on its own?
Oh, and did you know that the planet is much cooler now that it has been over most of its history? In fact - you probably don't know this - we are technically still in an Ice Age. Yup. Look it up. The more you know...
25 - RJ
Pro-Tip: James Hansen is basically a discredited ideologue, not a dispassionate scientist. He was one of the kooks warning about "global cooling" 40 years ago. Then he moved on to freaking out about "global warming." Now it's "global climate change," which is a meaningless phrase, since the climate is always changing. He's a joke.
BREAKING NEWS: Only 36% of American voters blame "global warming" primarily on human activity.