What is our energy priority?

Energy is a major issue this year in politics and industry. Gas prices are going through the roof, and with them, all other consumer goods. As much as we talk about energy and energy policy, we don't seem to be gaining any clarity on the issue whatsoever. So here is my attempt to provide some clarity by asking the following question: what is our priority? We seem to have lots of "problems", and each of those "problems" have vastly different solutions. So, what we need to do is prioritize. So, here are our problems, in no particular order (actually, they are probably in the order that I prioritize them). I will try not to add commentary until the end.

Problem #1 - The price of gas is approaching $4.00/gallon which is making it more and more difficult for low and middle class families to make ends meet. Should lowering the price of gas be our priority?

Solution #1 - If lowering the price of gas is our priority, then we should build more refineries. The Federal government should standardize legislation regarding fuel mixtures so that fuel produced for Illinois can also be sold to Wisconsin and Indiana and Michigan. This is one of the few cases where I think the Fed SHOULD intervene under the commerce clause; but, of course, they haven't. We should drill for oil off the coast of Florida, and California, and we should drill in Alaska. An increased oil supply will not, however, solve anything unless we expand our refinery capacity, which is bottle-necking our supply and artificially raising prices. We should take efforts to strengthen the dollar so that $1US is able to buy more foreign oil than it does today.

Problem #2 - We are supporting dictators and terror-sponsors by buying oil from them and putting our national security in the hands of volatile governments because of our dependence on foreign oil.

Solution #2 - See Solution #1. There is more than enough oil in the Western Hemisphere to supply all of the Western Hemisphere's needs, but we are not drilling for it. Canada alone has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but it is more expensive to collect and refine (you don't drill for oil in Canada, you scoop it up and separate it from the sand, which is a pricey process). So, if energy independence is our priority, and an issue of national security, then we can subsidize domestic drilling and refining, place heavy tariffs on foreign oil, promote the use of domestic oil through propoganda, and legislate that gas stations label their pumps with countries of origin.

Problem #3 - Our energy production is polluting the environment, and CO2 emmissions especially are adversely affecting our global climate.

Solution #3 - Build nuclear power plants. Water vapor is the only emmission from a nuclear power plant, and nuclear waste is concentrated and contained. I had an additional thought that we might be able to decommission some of our nuclear arsenal to create nuclear energy, I was even thinking it could have a witty slogan like "weapons to fuel" or "bombs to energy" or "bombs to bulbs" or something like that. That would make electric energy "clean" energy (especially in terms of carbon emmissions). Of course, we can build windmills and hydroelectric dams, and solar power plants, and we could subsidize the use of solar panels. We can build up our public transportation infrastructure by building more subways and elevated trains run off the power grid. Lastly, we can subsidize the use of electric cars, especially the commuter cars that have recently been introduced that run off of electricity first, then switch on a gasoline engine once the batteries have depleted to a certain point.

Problem #4 - Oil is a relatively fixed resource, and even through there is a lot of it, once we have depleted it, it is gone.

Solution #4 - Solar, wind, and water energy are potential solutions for electric energy, though it's not likely to supply all of our electric needs until there are substantial improvements in the technology, and these won't run cars. Hydrogen could be considered renewable so long as the electric power used to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is produced by hydroelectric dams, windmills, or solar panels. Even though it is a net energy loser, we would be converting renewable energy (like wind) into a transportable energy, and that transporatable energy has economic value that would be worth the net loss of energy. Ethanol is also a net energy loser, so it can only be considered renewable energy if the energy we use to create it comes from the sun, the wind, or water.

So, what is our energy policy today? What are we doing to lower the price of fuel? What are we doing to make ourselves energy independent? What are we doing to reduce polution? What are we doing to use renewable energies? Ethanol.

The federal government has been subsidizing Ethanol which is somehow marketed as the solution to all our problems.

The reality is that ethanol does not solve ANY of our problems; in fact, it's not even a step in the right direction.

It's not going to lower your gas bill: it is only a competitive fuel source when it is heavily subsidized by the government, which means that we are paying the government instead of paying at the pump. It can't be transported in a pipeline, which means we have to use trucks, which are expensive and crowd our highways. The acreage we are using to produce ethanol is driving up food prices. If you haven't noticed it yet, you will. At a recent food convention I spoke with a wide variety of growers, and their raw product costs are going up 50 - 100%, and every single one of them blamed (in part) ethanol subsidies. While ethanol is cheaper per gallon at the pump (because it is so heavily subsidized), it is a less efficient fuel, which means that your loss in fuel economy will offset your savings per gallon. So essentially, we are paying for ethanol on April 15th, we are paying for ethanol in the grocery store, and we are still not saving one red cent at the gas pump.

Ethanol is also not a viable solution to energy independence. There is not enough corn in the Western Hemisphere to both feed the people and power their cars. I haven't looked very closely at this because the economic damage we are doing should be enough to make us say, "Uncle", but I imagine there is probably some minute reduction in our need for foreign oil since some of the energy to produce ethanol must be coming from the grid, and not foreign oil. Ultimately, the only way we will be totally energy independent (or at least not dependent on the middle east) is if we increase our use of Canadian oil and drill in the Gulf, off the coast of California, and in Alaska. Ethanol will help, but it will not prevent the dreaded drilling in ANWAR, and it comes with severe economic disadvantages. So, if we are using ethanol as an alternative to drilling, but we are going to have to drill anyway, then why use ethanol?

Ethanol is not green. I don't care what Chevy, or Ford, or corn farmers, or anyone else tells you. We are burning coal and oil to make it, and the green house gases that are produced from ethanol are equal to, if not greater than that of regular unleaded gasoline. So, the total impact of ethanol will result in more pollution, not less. Regular unleaded gasoline is greener than ethanol, end of story.

Ethanol is only renewable if it is produced totally on the grid, which it is not; and even if it were, there wouldn't be enough to go around. So, scratch ethanol as a viable renewable fuel source.

So, the next time you hear mention of an energy policy, ask two questions: what problem is this going to solve? Is this problem our most pressing concern?