(5 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)
Loading ...Energy Independence!
While the major candidates are debating how big a role Bill Clinton should play in Hillary’s campaign, here at UniteForMike we like to talk about real issues. Today, I’d like to talk about this notion of “Energy Independence.”
Every candidate running for President thinks that they have the plan for “Energy Independence.” With each brilliant 30-second sound-byte, I have heard each and every one of them state how he/she has a plan to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, develop domestic sources of renewable energy, and maintain strong economic growth. And to top it off, they all agree that everyone gets a little bonus this May on the government’s dime so we can go out and buy more “stuff” to keep the economy rolling.
This is the crux of the problem with this whole notion of “Energy Indpendence.” “Stuff” takes energy. In order to have a growing economy, we need to make more and more “stuff.” If energy becomes too expensive, we can’t make as much “stuff.” I feel like Dorothy in the land of Oz every time I hear any of the major candidates give their sound byte on “Energy Independence.”
For once, I’d like to hear some real discussion on this topic. As an example, an interesting article came out in the January edition of Scientific American on a major initiative for a national solar energy plan. It would require the construction of 30,000 square miles of photo voltaic arrays in the Southwestern United States with the simultaneous construction of a nationwide direct-current transmission backbone to deliver the electricity to local communities. Underground caverns for the storage of compressed air would need to be utilized as local facilities to be tapped for energy during nighttime hours. The plan would take 40 years to develop and would require $420 billion in federal subsities over the 40 year period. However, it is estimated that such a plan could deliver 35% of the total energy usage in the United States by the year 2050, would completely eliminate the need for foreign oil imports, and would cut our carbon emissions by nearly a factor of 3.
If this is feasible, this isn’t just win-win. It’s win-win-win-win.
These types long term energy projects are exactly the type of things that our next president along with his/her scientific advisers need to significantly evaluate. So the question becomes, which candidate should the American public trust to make these necessary long term policy decisions?
First let’s look at the Republican candidates. Before we do that, I think it will be fair to say that the big oil and coal companies would strongly oppose this type of bold solar plan. When you compare the long term benefits of this type of national solar plan with the short term benefits (i.e. campaign dollars and lobbyist promises) from the oil and coal industry - call me cynical, but I don’t think it would be hard to predict which would win.
Now take the Democrats. I’ve heard both Obama and Edwards say that we need to start cutting down on our traditional coal-fired plants. Plus, Edwards is vehemently against nuclear power. Basically, I see their view is that conservation and ramping up biofuels will take care of everything. These types of renewable projects are long term and we can’t just cut out existing forms of energy and expect to keep this multi-trillion dollar economy growing. You need energy to grow an economy. And without a strong economy, we can’t afford the $420 billion in subsidies for these types of programs.
This leaves us with the need to explore a different option. We need a independent, pragmatic leader who will base decisions on scientific and economic data and not on the opinions of special interest groups and ideologues.
Sound like anyone we know?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am
A previous President and Mayor of New York City (FDR) implemented a plan that not only lifted us out of the clutches of a pervasive depression, but it also created the conditions for robust economic growth. The effects of this plan created a capacity that built upon the industrial revolution by investing in our people and our infrastructure.
Unlike the “band-aid” $150 billion economic stimulus plan on the table, Mike Bloomberg’s vision is to smartly INVEST in our infrastructure. It is fiscally irresponsible to increase the national debt as a quick fix instead of investing wisely. Wise investment can yield short and long term economic benefits.
Energy Independence and Economic Growth and not mutually exclusive issues. Smart investment in one stimulates the other. America’s energy structure is part of our national infrastructure as sure as the sun is the greatest untapped source of energy in our solar system.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
In the case of the Democratic and Republican front runners, I’d be more inclined to start with this question:
How will you declare energy independence from oil, when oil industry lobbyists stack your campaign coffers with cash?
This is yet another reason why Bloomberg is our best hope. If he self finances his campaign he won’t have to bow down to oil lobbyists behind closed doors. He defied lobbyists in NYC and he’ll do it in Washington too.
So if we want energy independence let’s start with political independence! Bloomberg 2008!
January 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I would ask them all “How will you synch up what we need to do with what we can do in terms of Energy Policy and Energy Independence and at what cost in terms of money and shared sacrifice? What to you is and is not in our National Interest in terms of Energy Policy and if undecided how will you approach delineating what is in our National Interest in term of Energy Policy and what is truly implementable? How will you achieve a bipartisan national consensus on delineating that Energy Policy and the means of implementing what can be achieved?”
There is a lot of discussion out there in the land on all the wonderful “Oughta /Must Dos” on Energy and all but scant little on the “Can Dos” of what is realistically achievable and accomplished and at what cost. IMHO Bloomberg would be way more capable than the other candidates remaining in giving a cogent and realistic answer that would show the way to the all important synching up of the “Oughta/Must Dos” of with the “Can Dos”.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Impractical
The problem with the current “Energy Plans” if you can call them that is they are incredibly impractical. On the Republican side the special interests control the debate and limit the scope of what is necessary. On the other side, the Democrats like to tout plans that hinge upon technologies that cannot provide the large breakthroughs necessary for true energy independence and environmental stewardship. Anyone who believes that nuclear power should NOT apart of our energy portfolio is not a legitimate candidate for the Presidency. It is impractical and illogical. A number of my friends and family work in the national laboratories here in New Mexico where they deal primarily with nuclear technology. They fully endorse the ability of nuclear power to provide the energy we need with a great deal less environmental impact.
Additionally, the research that is being conducted at our nation’s national laboratories in other breakthrough technologies must be continually supported and encouraged. We need a leader with pragmatic approaches to energy, the economy and immigration just to name a few. Bloomberg we need your mind in DC in January 2009!
January 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Related to this…Thought I’d pass this one on from http://ethanolfactfictionreality.blogspot.com/
“The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing today that they will invest $85 million in three pilot project plants to determine the success of early techniques in producing cellulosic ethanol. This project by the DOE is distinguished from their earlier investment in commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol trials that included Poet’s Emmetsburg, Iowa plant. However, this latest round of DOE investment may allow for greater testing of cellulosic feedstocks found outside of the Midwest — such as wood waste or other agricultural wastes. This would allow, if successful, for cellulosic ethanol to be the bed-rock of the ethanol industry in the South and Western parts of the United States much like corn has been for the nation’s midsection. The three companies will have small scale plants in Boardman Oregon, Commerce City Colorado, and St. Joseph Missouri and will employ both chemical and thermochemical techniques to liberate the sugars that reside in the cellulosic material. Although this will be a good step forward in developing and encouraging data into cellulosic ethanol production, the technology remains very new and the technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic materials economically has yet to be proven.”
For the original press release, follow the link below:
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=140902
January 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
It doesn’t take a genius (and I think Mike is a genius) to know that things like Smart Cars are good for the urban environment and can act as a bridge in the start to rebuilding the infrastructure. (The last time I saw a Smart Car was in Paris; the police were driving down the sidewalk in a “slow speed” pursuit of a criminal. ) You can also park far more Smart cars in the spaces allotted to vehicles in NYC than you can Hummers or Volvos. Same thing in suburban mall parking lots and 3-car garages.
Mike knows that French nuclear power plants (as also with Japanese nuclear plants) are built all the same, maintained all the same ,and clean and help create a 20th century energy infrastructure that works.
Mike also know the players to import the Smart Cars and little Toyota diesels that average 60 mpg and the 100 mpg Toyota Hybrids that will be available to government entities first and then the public in 2009.
I think that Mike’s the person and/or President get these current political yo-yos to start thinking green, rebuilding a workable urban and national infrastructure that doesn’t cost us the next two installment payments of the national debt.
Dave
January 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Solving the energy crises is not going to be easy. Most of the proposed options for producing clean renewable power are nowhere near the levels of energy production needed. But the problem is we can’t wait decades for solutions that will stave off the upcoming drastic decline in oil and fossil fuel production in the world. Every segment of the renewable energy industry is brimming with new ideas, science and technology. There is no silver bullet to hit this illusive target.
The candidates are sidestepping renewable energy, the most important issue of the 2008 elections, piddling with popular side agendas history will see as peanuts by later generations. All their web sites give lip service and boiler-plate responses to the environment and energy. Whether you like one candidate or hate another, if they do not have a solid vision and guts to upset the capital hill applecart for renewable energy they are not going to get elected.
It will take a candidate that probably has not even entered the race yet and we are still looking for this revolutionary energy savior. Trouble is, based on history; a Pearl Harbor needs to be suffered before the country finally comes together. Then sadly the loss in treasure is enormous and body count is very high.
It will take a public and private partnership of colossal dimensions to pull off energy independence. The scale will be bigger historically than the Panama Canal, the New Deal, Manhattan Project, D-Day Invasion and Homeland security War on Terrorism after 9/11.
As a self-serving public relations ploy, all of the announcements and some startup programs for renewable energy by the big oil players are relatively small scale. They are a reaction to the publicly perceived concern for climate change. Also, congress will start mandating they move in that direction. Big oil does not want large windfall profits taxes on the polluting energy they make billions on. Their stakeholders are curious where their profits are going to come from as fossil fuel becomes less and less available and attractive. They take out full page ads saying they care about some duck pond yet in the background is a mega oil or chemical plant that is using up fossil and non-renewable resources at a quantum rate.
Renewable energy has been researched and studied to death by universities, state and federal governments and other groups. The technology is already there. All the conservation in the world doesn’t work if all nations still pump out millions of cars, continue to build cities and have babies at a prodigious rate. The planet will eventually implode.
Give me the money today it cost to build a new aircraft carrier and I will show you how to build a solar power plant that produces 100% renewable energy cheaper per watt than any public utility on the planet. And I am not even running for President.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I agree - America gets wisdom late and at cost! I do not think the candidates though are sidestepping renewbables though. They just need to bring that discussion into a strategy that is implementable and costed out better. And you will not get that by focusing exclusively on just one type of energy technology, but rather you need to focus on a host a basket of various technologies from diesel, to nukes, to wind to solar and still oil (for a looonnng time) etc. There are no silver bullets in the real world usually. Fun to think about but rarely the case. The best most prudent way forward is to expand the portfolio of doable alternatives on energy. But what is above all in need of is a doable implementable fully costed out strategy to expand the range of plausible energy sources. I think Bloomie’s experience shows he can bring that type of strategy formulation about!