4 of 9

Write now Article Tools

America's energy policy is in Green Shackles (1). That is the problem!

Green Shackles are the unnecessary and restrictive legislation pushed by the Green Movement to promote their dangerous Green ideology.

Politicians of both the Democrat and Republican parties subserviate themselves to the Green Movement in order to gain the Green votes.

It seems the first priority of politicians is to gain power and stay in power and so have a high status job. Therefore the vast majority of them can not afford to buck the system and be seen to be "politically incorrect".

Will it be possible for the USA to break these shackles? I don't know.

This does not harbor well for the USA to achieve a sensible Energy Policy to allow for future prosperity!

Let's first look at electricity generation.

At present US electricity is derived from coal-fired power stations 52%, nuclear power 21%, natural gas 16%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil-fired 3%, and other sources 1% (geothermal, wind and solar).

So the Democrats' (Obama) policy of promoting renewable energy, in particular wind and solar energy for electricity generation, in order to meet future demands, seems inappropriate and futile.

Wind power is uneconomic and requires ongoing operating subsidies. Solar energy is even more expensive. Both these renewables need almost 100% backup with conventional power generation so why build them in the first place?

What are other countries doing about this problem?

France is a world leader in nuclear technology and has 59 nuclear power plants and generates 80% of its electricity by this means. Figures for some other countries are South Korea 40%, Japan 30%, Spain 24% and UK 20%. So the USA has allowed itself to lag way behind in utilizing nuclear power and hasn't built a new plant for over 30 years.

However, to get ahead it is necessary for the US to reject the Green anti-carbon ideology and the US Supreme Court decision ( 2007) that CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant, which it is NOT. CO2 is a vital life giving minor component of the atmosphere and is an essential fertilizer for the biosphere. Contrary to the preachings of Al Gore, the world would be better off with more atmospheric CO2, not less, nor is it causing global warming (2).

This false legal decision by the US Supreme Court has given supposed justification to demonize the element carbon and carbon dioxide. It has opened up Pandora's box for the politicians to dream up new carbon taxes and restrictions on businesses to emit "greenhouse gases". Utilities are being forced to provide 10% or more electricity from "renewable resources", irrespective of the cost.

The EU economy is in tatters from implementing an "Emissions Trading Scheme" and putting caps on the amount of greenhouse gases that industries can freely emit. The US should wake up to this false ideology and quarantine it at source, like they successfully did with communism. These are the dangerous Green Shackles referred to by Vaclaus Kraus, President of the Czech Republic (1).

Another "red-herring" promoted today is "clean coal technology" whereby the CO2 produced by industrial plants is buried underground (carbon sequestration) in order to prevent global warming, all of which is a bizarre nonsense and gross waste of R & D funds. Such R&D should be discontinued and the funds more usefully applied.

The Democrats' promotion of "renewable energy" is unwise and confusing for the public. Obama wants to promote "Green jobs" by building wind turbines, solar panels and fuel efficient cars.

Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing this for several years and has shackled the state with unwise Green inspired legislation including a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions. The Green jobs have not materialized but just the opposite has happened. Unemployment has risen from 4.9% (Dec 06) to 9.3 % (Dec 08, always being above the US average rate, now 7.2%. California is facing bankruptcy with a $40 billion budget deficit. Industries able to do so are starting to move operations to more business friendly states, or overseas (3).

This dilemma, coupled with the Global Financial Crisis, which originated largely from "inspired investment activities" on Wall Street and by US banks, suggests that the US economy is doomed to experience an economic recession for the long term. The current Green Crisis is similarly caused by the stupidity of power seeking individuals trying to make a fortune by useless trading in thin air. The bubble will inevitably burst and soon.

So what to do?

The solution is straightforward.

The cheapest and most reliable way of generating electricity is with a coal-fired power plant of the high tech variety having devices to eliminate particulates, sulfur and other pollutants from the combustion gases. Ideally gases liberated to the atmosphere are harmless water vapor and CO2.

Where the country has extensive coal deposits then one builds more coal-fired power plants.

Where there are no coal deposits then you build nuclear power plants for electricity generation.

Burning natural gas to generate electricity it is rather wasteful. Natural gas has many other more valuable end uses such as domestic and industrial heating, and as an input to the petrochemical industry.

Let's now look at transport fuels.

The USA domestic production of petroleum is about 42% of demand with the remainder imported (from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria). This is not too an alarming situation, but a boost of domestic production to 50% of demand would seem a strategically comfortable move (4).

An idealistic goal of becoming self-sufficient in petroleum is not a sensible one since world trade is essential for world prosperity.

Recent oil price fluctuations from $50 to $140 a barrel and down again to $40 are difficult to understand. Supply seems not to have changed much. The bogie of peak oil is I believe an illusion. New extraction technologies and exploitation of new oil fields and oil shale deposits should maintain an adequate supply for another 100 years at least.

The US should develop new oil fields particularly offshore on the continental shelf and in Alaska. So get drilling! Some new oil refineries would be useful too, to ensure the domestic supply of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel! When was the last US oil refinery built?

I predict that the main transport fuels for the next 100 years will still be gasoline and diesel used in conventional automobile engines, which will be made more fuel efficient. Use of LPG (Autogas, or propane) should be encouraged as a cheaper alternative to gasoline. Diesel-LPG mixed fuels are promising. The larger cars with V6 engines running on LPG most of the time are just as economical as small cars using gasoline only (until the Feds change the fuel tax system!). Large cars and SUVs have the room to install an LPG tank. Americans (and Australians) prefer a large powerful car to drive long distances in comfort and haul boats and caravans.

The practice of using corn ethanol as a transport fuel or additive to gasoline is a nonsense. Energy wise you are going backwards. It is favored by corn farmers and the Greens. Without Government subsidy the whole exercise will fizzle out and then is best forgotten.

Biodiesel is the more promising biofuel and in some localities may be sensible and economic to make. It is a niche area fuel but does nothing much to help solve the whole energy supply problem.

Hybrid gasoline-electric powered cars are comparatively expensive and popular when the price of gasoline skyrockets but are difficult to sell when gasoline prices are low or moderate. They are an interesting and worthwhile development. Their long term (5 years?) reliability and economics has yet to be ascertained

Small all-electric cars may have their niche area for city transport, just as in many Chinese cities the bicycle powered by an electric motor is popular.

Heating fuels:

These are natural gas and coal-seam gas (both methane) which are readily transported by pipeline for use in domestic and industrial heating. Also we have the heavy fuel oils derived from petroleum refining. Importation of LNG can help provide the coastal cities with heating fuel. When is LA going to get an LNG terminal?

In summary, the future prosperity of the USA will be dependent on the ready availability of hydrocarbon fossil fuels until the end of this century, at least. As conventional oil deposits become depleted oil will be increasingly extracted from unconventional deposits such as oil sands and shales. Production of synthetic gasoline from natural gas, and synthetic gasoline and diesel fuels from coal, will become commonplace as the price of petroleum rises. Fossil fuels are the Green Power of the future!

Will the USA break its Green Shackles that are now stifling development and so preserve its standing as the leading world power? I hope so.

Some References:

(1) "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Vaclav Klaus, (2007), Competitive Enterprise Institute. See Susan Easton's interview with Vaclav Klaus (President of the Czech Republic) here. He says "I see no difference between the ideology of communism and that of climate change."

(2) "Thank God for Carbon" by Ray Evans, (Nov 2008), a Lavoisier Group publication.

An overview of this publication is presented at the Lavoisier Group website: www.lavoisier.com.au

The Lavoisier Group Inc is composed of Australian scientists concerned about the "global warming" bandwagon and the damage it is causing to society. Many supporting articles are available from this website.

(3) Official website for the State of California: http://ca.gov/

(4) Official Energy Statistics from the US Government:

http://tonto.eia.do e.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_ oil_dependence.cfm

Ends

Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The problem with America's energy policy?
We want to hear your view. Write now!