Ask a Democrat how to solve the current energy problem and they will reply wind and solar, wind and solar, increase CAFE standard, wind and solar... Ask a Republican how to solve the issue and they will reply drill, coal, nuclear energy, drill, coal, nuclear energy... And I would say that they are both right. The problem is that each side is so blinded by their extreme positions that they refuse to negotiate and compromise.

Drilling for oil: 

It is estimated that 115 billion barrels of oil are within the territorial waters of the United States and another 16 billion in small stretch of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Although this is not enough oil to reduce our need for imported oil it is enough to reduce the amount of oil we have to import, help reduce our trade imbalance, and help to increase world wide supplies thus reducing the price of oil. Hmmm... More U.S. jobs, less imported oil, cheaper energy costs, lower trade imbalance. So what is the problem? The very local Environmental groups that have a huge sway within the Democratic party. These groups are motivated to stop any new oil exploration and recovery in our country. The usual reason is the fear of oil spills and the affect that oil drilling has on wildlife.

One thing that is not being addressed however is the improvement in oil recovery technology and safety. More oil can be drilled with fewer drilling sites, and the safety record is much better. But the environmentalist refuse to acknowledge that just maybe we can drill and still be sensitive to the environment. It is an all or nothing deal for them, meaning no drilling, no where, no how.

Coal 

Coal conjures up images of large plants belching out smoke, gray skies, acid rain, and green house gasses. Yet major strides have been made in clean coal technology. Todays coal power plants produce 70% less pollutants than ones in the pass. But you don't hear much about that. There is also a process to convert coal into a clean burning gas. In fact, there is a way to turn coal into gasoline and test have shown that syngas (gas made from coal) burns cleaner than gas from oil and will help to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Oh, and the United States holds the largest coal deposits in the world. About three times as much coal as Saudi Arabia has oil.

So where is the government on coal? Well recently, President Bush stopped funding a program that was working on developing a coal power plant that produced zero greenhouse gasses. 

Nuclear Power 

In 2007 there were 104 nuclear power plants in the United States that produce about 20% of our electricity. France with a population of 64 million uses 59 nuclear reactors. When you compare the number of people per nuclear reactor, you find that France has about 1 reactor for every 1 million people. In the U.S. we have roughly 1 reactor for every 2.9 million people. Now nuclear energy is dangerous but the safety record has been exemplary. Even the accident at Three Mile Island was contained according to the design of the reactor. But while the rest of the world is turning more and more to nuclear power, the original world leader in nuclear technology sits idle and does nothing.

CAFE 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy is the average fuel economy of a manufacturers fleet of passenger cars and trucks that are sold. It was passed into law in 1976 as a results of the Arab oil embargo. The goal was to save fuel by forcing car manufacturers to design and build more fuel efficient cars. This is one of the mantras of the Democratic party, to increase CAFE. The car manufacturers have resisted any increases in CAFE over the years and the Republicans allied with Detroit Democrats have tried to stymie efforts to increase it. The reason for American car makers is that most of their sales come from SUVs and trucks. Detroit has had trouble competing with small Japanese cars who's bread and butter comes from the sale of small fuel efficient vehicles. But just so you don't think that the Japanese car makers are someone more noble and ecologically conscience than their Detroit rivals, consider this; Japan has the second highest CAFE standard in the world. The current world leader is the European Union and the lowest among industrial nations is the United States.

The investment in research, engineering, and manufacturing newer more fuel efficient cars is tremendous while the ability to eek out more fuel economy is diminishing. It would be too much to legislate Detroit to make a major leap in fuel economy. But CAFE standards could have been gradually increased over the last thirty years if Congress would have looked beyond their next election and worked on a decent compromise.

EPA Miles Per Gallon Estimate 

One way that car manufacturers have been able to avoid CAFE standards is in the way they would determine the miles per gallon (MPG) that each car gets. In the past, these methods were very questionable and it allowed all car manufacturers to give exaggerated claims as to the efficiency of their vehicles. Finally Congress did do something about this and in 2006 the way MPG estimates are done will change. This will cause a drop of between 8 and 12 percent. Some vehicles MPG will drop as much as 20 and 30 percent. Interestingly the cars hit hardest by these new methods will be hybrids. However it has taken far too long for Congress to act on well known abuses by the car manufacturers.

Hydrogen 

Fuel cell technology has come a long way and is really ready for prime time, accept that we do not have a hydrogen infrastructure for the nations. California is building one thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger. But while there are a few states that see the need and potential for hydrogen the Federal government is doing very little.  In fact a group representing fuel cell researchers once approached Vice President Al Gore (Mr. Green) about supporting more research to get hydrogen cars on the road; he refused.

But the technology is there with some outstanding cars such as the Chevy Equinox , Cadillac Provoq, and Ford Edge. But why aren't we seeing more programs for building that infrastructure?  Why can't Congress create a comprehensive package that includes in increase in CAFE standards and tax incentives to help push fuel cell and battery technology? 

Fuel cell technology should end with automobiles either. You could start a program to convert leisure and commercial boats to fuel cell technology. It would take a lot less infrastructure to put in hydrogen fueling stations in our largest harbors and marinas. Image if all our harbor tugboats, ferrys, and coast guard patrol boats were transferred to hydrogen engines. That would mean a significant savings in fossil fuels, and image no more oil, or exhaust being belched into our waterways! Have you ever looked at the oily dirty water in our nations marinas? Wouldn't it be nice if we could eliminate all that pollution? So why aren't we pursuing that? Wouldn't be nice if our recreational boats only produced water and oxygen as a by-product?

And then there are the trains. Again, a train runs along a fixed route for a fixed distance. Why can't the trains be converted to hydrogen? I realize that today freight trains are very efficient but the goal is energy independence and reduced pollution. Every 1,2, or 10 percent drop in fossil fuel usage will help.

We need a plan to build a hydrogen infrastructure. What is Congress doing?

Batteries 

One quick way to reduce the usage of fossil fuels is to switch to electric cars. To get people to switch we really need to develop cheaper better battery technology so cars like the Chevy Volt can be built economically. Plug-in hybrids such as the Volt can be converted to hydrogen generators to further reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Progress is being mad but we need to do more. A lot of the new battery technology is being developed over seas. This could be a case where we trade energy independence for battery independence. We need to help develop battery technology here so we do not have to rely on other countries for our energy. John McCain has suggested a prize for U.S. companies to develop new battery technology hopefully other politicians will wake up and follow suite.

Solar 

Solar power has come along way and is really ready to help reduce the need for fossil fuels. There are many innovative approaches being developed. I think one of the most is to take a grid approach. Individual homeowners can put solar panels on their roofs while maintaining their connection to the local utility company. These panels are designed to supply enough energy for the house. When the homes energy needs of the house exceed what is being produced by the solar panels, then they draw power from the utility company. If the panels create more power then the home is using then the power is sold back to the utility company who can distribute it to other customers. What an elegant solution. You don't need acres and acres of solar farms, you can create this farm on the roofs of homes that are already there. The problem is many homeowners find the solar panels too expensive. There are program available to help purchase solar panels but there need to be more.

Another innovative idea can be seen at the California State fairgrounds CalExpo. At Cal Expo they have created a farm on solar panels that are suspended above the parking lot. Cal Expo has taken a large area of parking and use it to create free energy to run the exhibits, And the customers can park their cars in the shade under the solar panels. Free energy, no fossil fuels, and shade for your car! I don't understand why malls and theater complexes don't do the same. Not only are the providing a service to the customer by providing a cooler place to park, but they are reducing their enormous electric bills.

The usual answer is that the expense of the project. Again this is a case where government incentives would help to move large energy hungry businesses to move to their own solar power.

Wind 

Like solar, wind power has come a long way. One innovative technique is to use a combination of solar heat and the effect of rising hot air to create a wind turbine.

The point is that there is no one solution to energy independence. Maybe someday there will be but we can't keep waiting for some day. You always hear the opponents of drilling saying that it will take 10 years for our domestic oil fields to be developed. Well if they hadn't been blocking all attempts to expand drilling then we would have that oil today, and prices would be a lot lower. The same thing goes for alternative energy such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. You keep hearing people say they can't replace oil, or it will take decades to replace oil. Well this stupid debate has been going on for decades.

Congress needs to tell the extremist groups to shut up. We need a comprehensive plan. Expanding oil drilling and nuclear plants can have an immediate impact. But there has to be a reciprocal investment in the future. For instance, for every new oil platform and every new nuclear plant built, a certain amount of money should go to developing or building a solar or wind plant; or it could go to building a hydrogen infrastructure. CAFE standards could be increased but at the same time the government could provide tax relief and incentives for the car manufacturers to get the new plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles on the road. The government could also offer buyer incentives for people to move to the newer cars because the first generations are going to be expensive.

We need to define our goals, and then create a plan to reach it. The plan should be complimentary and not antagonistic. In other words we need strong leaders to get us out of this mess. Is there anyone in Congress willing to step up to the plate?

 - Thomas Paine 2

Technorati Tags: Energy Policy, Politics, Energy Independence