Originally I had planned to go whole hog with my own presidential campaign series of blogs but that would’ve been entirely too much work. But I did want to put a few things out there now and then. Like my energy policy. Well, “my” energy policy. Very little, if anything, of this post is original thought. The rambling, idiotic portions are all me but I’ll be honest up front and just say this is largely an amalgam of many things I’ve read over the last few years. With that little bit out of the way, let’s get down to it.
Domestic Electricity Needs
Over the last few years terms like “rolling brown outs” have become common terms in the lexicons of many Americans (especially for those in SoCal). One answer that’s fallen way out of favor is nuclear power. The fear of a Chernobyl in one’s backyard is enough to dissuade most people from supporting any such proposition. This is in spite of the fact that we have never had a meltdown in the U.S. (indeed, some would claim that Chernobyl style accidents are physically impossible here in the U.S.) and that nuclear power plants have a drastically lower waste emission rate. Still, there’s a, dare I say, cloud lingering over the idea of nuclear power.
A recent popular addition to the green mania sweeping the country is wind power. But even this seemingly innocuous form of energy production has its detractors. And not all of them wannabe royalty. While these wind farms have 0 carbon emissions (after material construction, of course), some of the main complaints are the noise (see the “whoosh whoosh whoosh” complaints in the NPR link) and the number of birds killed after flying into the effective blender action of hundreds of blades spinning around. There are various workarounds for these problems, but this option should certainly be exploited more.
Solar power is my personal favorite. And here is where I’ll veer away from exposition and into recommendation. Solar panels have been getting increasingly efficient which has been one of the primary complaints I’ve heard about them. However, if I were president (or governor) I would mandate all new residential construction have solar panels installed and that houses be built to be more energy efficient. These panels would produce a decent portion of a household’s electricity reducing the need to pull off the grid. As panels get more effective and households become more energy efficienty, the likelihood of surpluses increases. In some instances, households already show a surplus and the energy companies are required to purchase that surplus.
With the advent of such requirements, we could feasibly move to microgrids instead of expansive region wide grids that cover multiple states. Such microgrids would be more resistant to cascading failures as there would be fewer interdependencies and, not to pass up a GOP talking point, there would be fewer central locations susceptible to terrorism. (Extra points for tying unrelated subjects to the “war on terror!”) As the market for these panels grows because of this mandate, competition will drive down prices and drive up efficiency. It’s a bit pie in the sky perhaps, but there it is.
The Oil Dependency
Every politician seems to his/her own solution to the oil problem with solutions ranging from drilling in ANWR (really just outside it I believe) to raising fuel efficiency standards. I’m actually OK with both proposals but, to be honest, they’re both short term fixes and are largely political sops to each group’s supporters. Neither really fixes the problem. I have a much bolder proposal.
On September 12, 1962 President Kennedy challenged the nation to tackle the difficulties of space flight and put a man on the moon. By the end of the decade we’d done. We put our minds to it and let nothing stand in our. In a similar fashion, if I were president, I’d challenge the nation (or realistically any company doing business in the States) to develop an alternative to the gasoline engine and the distribution system for the fuel to make it work. To the first company (or coalition of companies) that makes it possible, affordable, and the technology freely available to anyone, I’d offer something huge. Say, 5 years with no taxes or 10 years of 50% tax rebates. In effect, the American government would be buying the technology and making it freely available to any company that wishes to build upon it. A stick to go with the tax carrot would be legislation banning gasoline in noncommercial vehicles by, say, 2020. Knowing the road was coming to an end, so to speak, more people would be more inclined to find an alternative. Whether the oil companies or someone from left field like Google fills that gap is entirely open.
This shift would devastate the oil companies unable to make the shift for whatever reason. It would open up an entire new industry however relatively open to all comers. The auto industry would also have to retool but this impact would arguably be easier for them than the energy companies. The transition would disruptive to say the least and destructive in some cases. But there’s a much opportunity as risk there.
One more caveat I’d have to add is that it couldn’t be based on anything foodstuff related. We’ve already seen the nascent ethanol industry driving up food prices. We don’t need any more of that. I’m not an expert by any means (which probably means this is all rubbish) but I think hydrogen is the way to go. There have been a number of breakthroughs in recent years that make the production of hydrogen more cost effective. And with oil prices achieving escape velocity, it doesn’t have to be that economical to be competitive. If this technology is combined with the solar panel idea, it’s entirely conceivable that the massive power plants could be completely replaced.
Bonus Points
Though, I joked about it earlier, there is a definite perk in all this for national security and the “war on terror,” etc. etc. With plummeting demand for oil, we can begin to hope to provide for our own oil needs with our own reserves reducing or eliminating the need for oil from the middle east. And let’s be honest, oil is the only reason we really care about that region. Sure there are other imports from the region, but oil is far and away the chief item of concern. With little/no need for oil from external sources, we could essentially pull out of the region and close most/all of our bases. This is what bin Laden and company want: the U.S. out of the Middle East with our “evil” influence. This seems like a win/win to me. We’d be out of the Middle East and we’d save billions of dollars in base upkeep costs and staffing. Of course, the Middle Eastern economy would take a hit so maybe it’s not all win/win.
OK, I’m done
So to make specific points out of all this rambling, I’ll sum up with a few bullet points.
- Mandate solar panels on each new house.
- Tax breaks for whoever develops an alternative to the gasoline engine and the distribution system to support it.
- Outlaw gasoline engines in noncommercial vehicles.
- Close as many bases in the Middle East as we can. My vote is all of them.