Is energy independence possible?
Everyone
agrees that America needs to become energy independent. At
least everyone in his right mind.
We
currently pour billions of dollars into the coffers of people who don’t like
us, to say the least. Furthermore, there
are undesirable political ramifications to having our national policies
influenced by other countries that produce the oil we need.
So,
if the goal of energy independence is not at issue, what’s the problem? It’s how to do it, which gives rise to a
couple of other questions: Is it doable? And, if it is, why haven’t we done it
already?
Shortly
after the president’s annual report to Congress in January 2007, columnist
Charles Krauthammer noted, “Is there anything more depressing than yet another
promise of energy independence in yet another State of the Union address? By my
count, 24 of the 34 State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973
have proposed solutions to our energy problem. The result? In 1973 we imported 34.8 percent of our oil.
Today we import 60.3 percent.” (“Energy Independence,” by Charles Krauthammer,
Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2007)
Those
on the Left seem to believe that it’s possible to conserve our way out of
energy shortages or that developing alternative sources, such as ethanol, is
the answer, while purists on the Right hold that if we just get out of the way
of the free market, our energy problems will be automatically resolved by
private enterprise.
Krauthammer
sees three options: tax gas, drill in the Arctic, or go nuclear. But, can we really do any of these things,
given today’s political climate?
At
the very time when everyone is screaming about freeing ourselves from the yoke
of imported oil, we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot: No drilling no where, no time, no how, not ever, in Alaska, off the
coasts of California or Florida, the Gulf coast, etc., etc.
The
long-term answer is to develop alternative sources of energy, while the best
short-term solution is to increase the supply of oil. To do that, however, it will be necessary to
overcome the forces of environmentalism, which oppose drilling just about
anywhere in or near the U.S. They also
oppose any large scale solar, wind or nuclear power because of the perceived
risks or environmental impacts.
Growing
our energy in the fields by using corn to produce ethanol seems like a great
idea. After all, Brazil has done it very
successfully, so why not us?
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
So far, the only way the U.S. has been able to produce ethanol at a
reasonable price for the consumer has been to subsidize the process. And, although we may not be paying for it at
the pump, it’s costing us anyway. Just
how much isn’t clear yet, but it’s a politically popular idea. However, the long-term answer is to develop
nuclear power.
But, what about nuclear waste? Both coal and oil
produce toxic pollutants, producing carbon dioxide that we are told is going to
end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost
impossible to recover once they’re released into the atmosphere.
Nukes
produce waste as well. It’s downright
deadly and lasts nearly forever, but it’s very concentrated. And, because it’s packed into a small,
manageable volume, it is more controllable and doesn’t pollute the atmosphere
at all.
There
is no free lunch. Producing energy is going to produce waste. You pick your
poison and find a way to manage it.
© 2007 Harris R. Sherline
All Rights Reserved
NOTE: Read more of
Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at
“opinionfest.com.”