Tane

As with all of my opinions, I'll change my mind if presented with rational evidence that contradicts my viewpoint on alternative energy. I should also begin with the disclaimer that I know very little about energy technology and the controversial issue of global warming. I am looking at the issue of alternative energy strictly from the standpoint of foreign policy.

To begin with, I am something of an economic determinist. I think that, as long as America is dependent on foreign energy, it will come into conflicts, under pretexts, with the nations that control the energy sources. However, it is clear that the American people have not benefited financially from the war in Iraq and would not benefit were we to go to war with Iran, so it seems unlikely that our Middle Eastern conflicts are "blood for oil" per se.

However, a perhaps even more disturbing possibility emerges when one looks at who has benefited the most from our recent extreme hawkishness. The price of oil has soared, and given the connections (even if they are legal) of prominent members of the Executive Branch with oil companies as well as war contractors, there is strong circumstantial evidence, I think, that our recent policy has actually been "blood for less oil", particularly given the reluctance of this administration to implement any practicable alternative energy program. My father suggested this in a conversation, and the more I see of the situation the more I am convinced of the accuracy of this theory. This is not to state that there aren't genuine idealists who truly want to make the Middle East into a place of democratic freedom, but simply that those idealists have not seen their goals achieved, whereas war profiteers have.

Given the human and financial costs of our Middle Eastern policies, it becomes imperative that we become independent of fossil fuels completely, particularly since we also have poor relationships with Russia and Venezuela. I don't object to drilling in the ANWR, but that is only a short-term solution. Nuclear energy would be a great idea if there were some reliable way of disposing of the waste, but last I read there wasn't.

I have no expertise concerning which energy sources could free us from our current foreign policy, but I do, I hope, have some understanding of the economics that could lead to such sources being developed. There are a number of options. First, there is subsidizing alternative energy. I distrust this because, if the above theory is correct, it is a corrupt relationship between government and energy companies that has led to this crisis in the first place, meaning that something in the interactions between the federal government and the energy sector must change for real progress to be made.

Two other options I considered were full nationalization and a public works project to build the infrastructure for alternative energy. Nationalization, however, would likely result in a de facto government-owned corporation with the same incentives to stay dependent on foreign energy that the current system has. Having the government build the infrastructure for alternative energy and then transfer it to the private sector would give energy companies more time to maintain the status quo, since they wouldn't be doing the research and development, and I can also picture legally bribed politicians ensuring that the infrastructure was indefinitely incomplete. What seems best to me, though I'm open to other options, is an unfunded mandate. After determining how long it would take energy companies to switch to alternative sources, a date could be set at which fossil fuels would become illegal. A good way of preventing a repeal of such a law by self-interested politicians would, I think, be public financing, but that is for another forum. I could be wrong about all of this, so please point out any flaws in my logic and/or data.

__________________
"This too shall pass."

Wheeldog

If you are really interested in getting the inside scoop on the energy future, I strongly recommend accessing the following: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications...aking_NETL.pdf

The above is a comprehensive report carried out under contract to the U.S. Dept. of Energy. You may not want to read the whole thing, but I suggest reading at least the first 15 pages, especially the Executive Summary. Sometimes referred to as The Hirsch Report, this document lays out the history, current situation and likely outcome of peak oil. It contains excellent graphs and pulls together views from all sides of this issue. Be sure to skip to the end to read its chapter on recommended actions. The authors of this document are some of the most respected experts in their field. They are mainstream and base their conclusions on a thorough examination of the available data.

prussianblu

Try "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell. It can deconstruct the faulty image of reality constructed by the constant barrage of spurious facts via the media.

Bedohavebe

Watch the first 10-15 minutes of this press conferance
The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 National Press Club Conference
and look at the website
The Disclosure Project - The Greatest Secret in Modern History
it has interesting implications for energy policy Globally!

dahermit

A caution about definitions. Coal is a fossil fuel of huge abundance in the U.S. However, it is a "dirty" fuel in that its burning releases Carbon Dioxide and Sulfer into the atmosphere. If coal could be made clean and still be inexpensive our energy problems could be greatly reduced. Therefore, there should be research into converting coal into a clean burning fuel.

Tane

I should have written that we need to be independent of petroleum. Coal doesn't get much publicity for some reason.

__________________
"This too shall pass."

Wheeldog

There is a widespread belief that we have enough coal to meet our energy needs for hundreds of years to come. Sorry to burst the bubble, but it ain't so. First, coal comes in different grades, some of which are uneconomical to mine. The best high grade coal (anthracite) is often either in hard to mine locations or not in deposits of sufficient quantity to make the effort worthwhile. Mining coal poses huge environmental costs resulting in stripped landscape (often productive agriculture lands) or resulting in serious pollution of surface and subsurface water supplies.

Second, the primary concern for future energy needs is liquid fuels necessary to power modern transportation and to serve as feedstock for a host of products from plastics to pesticides. Coal simply does not have the same energy density of oil, and it is much harder to transport and process. Turning coal into synthetic gasoline is possible, but the return on energy invested is extremely small. During WWII Germany was forced to make synthetic fuel from coal to keep its war machine operating, but it was not enough. They invaded Russia and other Baltic countries, in part, to take over their oil fields.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but there really is no magic bullet that will adequately replace oil as the supply gap grows. Yes, we should explore and develop all reasonably viable alternatives, but it is delusional to believe that we can easily transition from the current energy system to some system that is just over the horizon. Hanging onto that false hope only uses up precious time that could be used far more productively.

dahermit

Some of what you have posted is true. But just to clear up some things:
Peat is like a surface pre-coal substance that must be dried before it will burn. I know of no peat beds being utilized in the U.S.
Lignite, a low grade of soft coal. I do not know of any lignite deposits in the U.S.
Bituminous, soft coal, widely used in the U.S. huge deposits in the U.S. , high sulfur content, most coal in the U.S. is bituminous, used in most power plants.
Anthracite, hard coal burns clean with very little ash compared to bituminous, many deposits in the U.S.
Coal has several limitations. But they may not preclude the continued use of coal if it could be cleaned up economicaly.

Wheeldog

It will take visions such as yours to take the place of the current energy system. However, it is extremely unlikely that solar, wind, bio mass, tidal, etc. will give us more than a fraction of the energy what we now get from petroleum. There is nothing on the horizon that can come close to matching oil for concenctrated energy in such a convenient form while also providing a magic brew for plastics, medications, synthetic fabrics, insulation, pesticides, etc. It literally is the life blood of modern civilization.

A future where oil becomes increasingly less available will require people to drastically reduce consumption and to live far more locally. It will also mean developing the alternative energy sources you suggest to support a more modest standard of living.

Tane

One of America's most serious problems is that it is among the least fuel efficient nations on Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrole...mong_countries

Only Canada and Saudi Arabia are less efficient. Well-to-do nations in Europe and Asia manage to use far less oil per person than the United States, so I suspect they are doing something right that we aren't.

Wheeldog, you seem to know a great deal about the energy industry. How would energy companies react to a Constitutional Amendment establishing a "prohibition" on petroleum in the United States by, let us say, 2020 or 2030?

__________________
"This too shall pass."