Originally Posted by
radar
The US is unusual among Western nations in that the distances that must be traversed for the business of the country to function properly are quite large. Europe can get by with much less energy usage on that basis alone, but Western Europe has the additional advantage that its climate is largely moderated by the Gulf Stream, so doesn't experience nearly the same heating and cooling demands as most of the US (Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are another matter, of course). Still, these differences render any attempts at direct comparison specious, though I do agree that there are cultural issues at play when things like how big a car one drives or how high one sets his thermostat are considered.
The point is that the US cannot simply adopt European style measures to solve its energy shortage through conservation alone; there must be an addition to supply as well. It's fine to say that geothermal, wind and solar technologies should be exploited to fill the gap, but the fact is that these technologies largely remain either much less efficient or much less cost effective than fossil fuels, and until that balance changes, people aren't going to be switching to them in any great numbers. It's wonderful if a wealthy or upper middle class homeowner wants to feel better by putting solar panels on his roof, but the average Joe isn't going to follow suit when he's looking at a 15-20 year payback, and he just doesn't have the cash. And it's elitist to insist that he should when doing so could cost his kids decent clothes or a college education.
What we need is something that every administration and every Congress since the 1960's have failed to give us: a coherent and comprehensive energy policy. Instead, political ideology has stood in the way, and our national security is now in grave danger because of it. We have, in effect, forced ourselves to finance those who seek to destroy us. I don't think such a policy would be all that difficult to construct if both sides, but particularly the left, would give a little and compromise. For my part, I'd like to see a two-pronged policy, one aimed at the near term and the other at 10-20 years down the road.
The immediate need, and the policy favored by the political right, is to reduce or eliminate our dependence on Middle East oil, and start using our own resources. In the near term, that means opening up the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the small region at ANWR to exploration and production. Contrary to the assertions of environmental activists, the technology is now such that environmental risks are extremely small, and debacles like the Santa Barbara spill vastly less likely. We can also produce oil from the shale deposits in the west, and we can revive the coal industry with the new, clean burning technologies now available. And for God's sake, let's start building refineries again! All it takes is for the government to get out of the way, and it will happen. But that's only the short term solution, not a viable long term policy, since it will ultimately result in the same sort of crisis we're facing now, when reserves become depleted.
For the long term, there's no reason why we can't invest in the technologies that the left favors: geothermal, wind and solar. But doing so must not force these technologies at great expense on an unwilling public. Instead, simply fund their development, and they will be adopted willingly when they have become cost effective and the marketplace is ready for them. We also have to do a long, hard re-examination of nuclear power, and stop with the knee-jerk fear mongering. Three Mile Island (from which I live downrange) was scary, but it was a fluke, and again, the control technology today is so vastly ahead of anything that was available in the 1970's that new plants would be orders of magnitude safer. This is the one place where copying European policy would be have major benefit to America, and there's no reason why, 20 years from now, we can't be generating 70-80% of our electric power via nuclear plants.
What bothers me about the inaction of the current Congress is that for political and ideological reasons, Pelosi, Reid and company aren't even letting bills into committee if they would open up domestic fossil fuel production. I consider that a crime against the American people. If Bush is impeachable for his Iraq policy, then these two are certainly deserving of recall or expulsion for their intractable position on energy. Were our politicians the leaders they claim to be, they would actually start dealing with each other, and propose something that takes into account both short AND long term solutions.
Reply With Quote
Re: Do we need more energy in this country
If anyone gets Smithsounien < I hope I spelled that right >in one of the back issues is astiry of an oil field in Montana,western North Dakota and western South Dakota it is sied to be greater then the North Slop and Off Shore together IT is a little more work to get to you drell down first then to the side to get to it. Next most of us who heat with oil aren't gone to be able ot do anything about it,so if were gone save any oil were gone to have to get it some wear else. Railroads are one most efficient way to move goods and people.Most long hall goods should be hall by rail and passengers under 500 miles should go by rail as well. Liegth rail,buses taxies and personal transport under 50 to 75 miles should be used.Air craft used for transport of pssengers of over 1000 miles or more and only hi priority or perishable goods should fly all auther should go by rail to save fuel.Were passible the railroad could be electrified to save even more fuel. 20% of what is spent by government cival air could biuld a first class rail system!__________________Ernie of Maine_____________