Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
With the turmoil in the Middle East roiling global energy markets – and prices at the pump ascending correspondingly – we’re entering another of those intermittent periods where “energy independence” is becoming a media shibboleth. Count me skeptical.
One of the more clarifying developments of the Obama Administration has been that an increasing number of conservatives have realized that most “alternative energy” is haute couture pork. Solar power has nowhere near the capacity needed to bring wholesale change to our energy consumption. Wind power is inconveniently located at considerable distance from those who need it and the transmission costs are prohibitive. Ethanol wreaks havoc on global corn use, driving up food costs at a time when that market is already subject to inflation. Even nuclear power, for all its virtues, relies these days on appeals for government loan guarantees that keep it from being a truly free-market endeavor (although the issue of whether those insurance premiums are distorted by government intervention is worth discussing).
Of course, giving voice to these concerns means you’re a shill for big oil (“big” being liberal parlance for “rapacious”). But as someone who cares more for the integrity of the free market system than for the performance of any particular firm or individual who chooses to participate in it, I couldn’t have less of a dog in this fight. To the extent I support oil it’s because it’s the one energy source we seem to have been able to utilize on a widespread, relatively affordable basis. And when it stops being affordable, we’ll move to the more efficient alternative – not by government fiat, but by the quiet logic of the market. As usual, being pro-market translates into being pro-what works.
What I find curious, however, is the number of conservatives who cite the need for “energy independence”. Superficially, it’s an enticing idea. While the left usually supports it on environmental grounds, the right is more likely to rely on the national security argument: because of the influence of Middle Eastern petro-states, we have to ease, if not eliminate our “addiction to fossil fuels” (truly one of the most inane clichés of modern politics). And no one is less anxious to put more money into the radicals’ pockets than those of us who consider ourselves national security hawks.
But at what cost, I wonder? Eliminating our use of hydrocarbons is a moonshot, but even if it were to happen, it wouldn’t put the Mid-East oil barons out of business. Global demand would remain high – especially with growing economies like China fueling demand. America would no doubt take an economic hit – you can’t expect to transition to more expensive fuel sources cost-free (the canard at the heart of the “green jobs” fallacy). And if you take a look at the most recent Department of Energy statistics, you’ll notice that only three of the 15 countries we import the most oil from are in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait). Of those, only Saudi Arabia is particularly problematic and the Saudis advantage in production (which allows them to hold the OPEC cartel together through the constant threat of unleashing a torrent of supply and driving their partners’ prices down) ensures they’ll still be in the game regardless of what we do.
Of course, we could be “energy independent” tomorrow – it would just require shutting down international trade in fuel sources. As conservatives, however, we should know better.
Tell me I’m wrong, Ricochet readers. Tell me there’s a conservative rationale for energy independence that is practicable and in keeping with our first principles. I await your responses.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
You're wrong.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
"Energy independence" is a suspicious notion. Dependence upon foreign producers shouldn't be avoided if it is the result of compliance with the law of comparative advantage and if those foreign producers are not direct physical threats.
What exactly do the advocates of "energy independence" desire?
How about market liberalization.
-Privatize the bulk of federal land and auction it off to the highest bidders. Energy companies will naturally bid the highest for earth that contains oil or natural gas underneath.
-End congressional restrictions on oil refinement. We build our last refinery in 1976, so even if oil producers maximized production, the narrow output parameters caused by capped refinement operations imposes a permanent limit upon the production of petroleum products.
-Proceed with nuclear power. Here's where things get a bit more complicated. Historically, nuclear power has been a government regulated operation. Being an advocate of liberalization, I opposed government involvement in the economy as it is coercive and, therefore, meddles with the dynamics of the market. However, I'd rather have government electricity than no electricity or a scarcity of electricity, just like I'd rather have government roads as opposed to no roads or road scarcity.
(Cont.)
Edited on Feb 28, 2011 at 11:43pmMay '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
All electricity production operations are government regulated, so I figure we pursue the best kind of government regulated power. The safety record of nuclear power in this country is stellar. The French and their nuclear enterprise Areva are doing magnificent things despite the government involvement. The output produced by uranium dwarfs all other sources of power, from the sun to the wind to fossil fuels. I reckon that costs in the long term with nuclear power are lower; no more continuous shipments of oil, natural gas, or coal. And storage of nuclear waste seems to be a political problem, not a technological one.
Edited on Feb 28, 2011 at 11:45pmOct '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
There is no rationale that I could find. To stop using imported oil in case we have to stop using imported oil makes no sense. The argument that we won't invent a replacement until we have to doesn't hold water.
Cheap energy has been continuously researched for over 100 years and aside from nuclear energy, there have been no viable alternatives to oil presented. Oil uses energy from the raw product to refine itself; ethanol lacks the energy necessary. Hydrogen requires massive energy to produce and so is useful only as conversion from wired electrical power to a mobile fuel; the same goes for batteries.
The only conclusion I can draw from the call for 'energy independence' -- aside from those who promote internal production of oil -- is that it sounds good on paper.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
"Energy independence" as an actual achievable goal is a fantasy in a world economy. There will always be opportunity for profitable trade of energy resources, among nations at various levels of economic development, even if it occurs only at the fringe margin of energy technology. (I'm thinking exporting cheap coal to poor nations trying to make a step up in industry, or importing rare materials for battery technology that can't be found within our borders.)
So while "independence" is a pipe dream, it is equally absurd to take ourselves out of the game completely by hamstringing our own industries. Are we the only nation in the world that willingly sits on its own natural resources? Or the only nation that would even consider sitting on its own resources? Or the only nation in the history of the world that has ever hampered itself in this way?
We'll never drill enough oil here to be a net petroleum exporter. But by tapping our resources, and maybe increasing our refining capacity, we could get more skin in the game. The only arguments against doing so are environmental, but those concerns can be mitigated by improved safety technology.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
Michael, I read somewhere once (I have a no idea where) a proposal to build nuclear power plants on the Navy bases around the country to hook into the national grid, because of the Navy's extensive experience running nuclear plants in subs and on ships. Do you have any knowledge or an opinion of that idea? While I'm in favor of free-market energy solutions as well, that might be an area where the government actually has a genuine competitive advantage-- especially where nuclear safety and security of materials is concerned. And the existing knowledge base in the Navy probably can't be beat.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
Since nuclear power grew as a byproduct of research into nuclear armaments, the government will always have some expertise in the field. Ideally, the production of nuclear power plants should be left to the market, where competition and the profit/loss system operate. However, I trust the Navy (naval vessels and assets are meticulously maintained and security for the plants would be world class). The fact is that we need electricity, just like we need roads and bridges. Nuclear power maximizes output, minimizes safety risk, and should cut costs long term.
Oct '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
I think we will see a natural shift away from carbon, whether it be towards lower-carbon fuels like natural gas, or nuclear power.
Why do we need a carbon tax? Energy prices are going up worldwide. There simply isn't enough oil in the world to supply us, the Europeans, Asia and Latin America. In my view, prices will rise of their own accord--no need to micromanage the process.
Jan '11
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
That number may be increasing but I think that number is still far too small. Anecdotal evidence that many conservatives have not realized this yet.
* [edited] You know, maybe you are correct; I haven't heard a lot from the guy in the last two years.
Edited on Mar 1, 2011 at 3:09amJan '11
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
Joseph Eagar: I think we will see a natural shift away from carbon, whether it be towards lower-carbon fuels like natural gas, or nuclear power.
Why do we need a carbon tax? Energy prices are going up worldwide. There simply isn't enough oil in the world to supply us, the Europeans, Asia and Latin America. In my view, prices will rise of their own accord--no need to micromanage the process. · Mar 1 at 1:42am
Not enough oil? Not so fast a pronouncement on that.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
I agree with those above that energy independence is not a viable or even logical goal. Having said that however, it makes zero sense to import something at a high cost when one could produce the same more cheaply and effectively at home. This is underscored by our high unemployment and low economic growth.
Being the only country on the planet to not aggressively pursue its own energy exploration and production is, at an absolute minimum, extrmely counterproductive. Not aggressively pursuing nuclear options when they are demonstrably safe, holding ourselves hostage to three mile island syndrome, is only slightly less insane. Artificially creating food shortages and inflation, by subsidizing corn based ethanol, when cheaper Brazilian alternatives are readily at hand is........I lack the vocabulary.
Far from agressively trying to attain energy independence, we are h__l bent for election in the opposite direction.
Jun '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
We could be energy independent. Absolutely. But the question is at what cost? The cost of mining oil sands is about $90 a barrel. Why would we mine for oil when deposits close to the surface can be pumped for less? The market will always determine what's economically viable and what is not. We'll have alternative energies as soon as they become financially viable - no sooner and no later.
Our problem is that "green" is a religion, and we're supposed to have a separation between church and state in this country. True believers can participate voluntarily all they like. Buy a Volt if it makes you feel righteous ("there's a sucker born every minute"). But the state shouldn't have the power to enforce "green" on the rest of us. Faith in markets is demonstrable; faith in government, not so much. Call me a heretic.
Oct '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
Possibly at Karl Denninger's market-ticker.org?
Dec '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
In the background of this discussion is the assumption that oil supplies will, more or less, remain constant.
Well, I have this to say to Low-Country Joe, who appears to be entertaining the possibility of what I consider to be magical thinking on this particular resource:
I will bet you one hundred inflation-adjusted dollars every year that the inflation-adjusted average price of a barrel of oil goes up when compared to the previous year. You in?
Feb '11
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
Very little oil is used for electricity production in the United States. Solar and wind really do not save oil, imported or domestic, except for indirect effects. Much discussion about energy seems to ignore this point entirely.
Reduced dependence on other countries for oil, which continues to be essential as a transportation fuel, is not irrational. Economics does not operate in a vacuum; wars and almost-wars will continue to occur. The Obama administration's suppression of drilling in the US is contrary to our national interest, and there are many other things that could be done to reduce imported-oil dependence.
Feb '11
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
We should reduce dependence on oil from unstable regimes in the Middle East, Africa and Venezuela. Canada and Brazill, with whom we can maintain good relations if we pay attention, are increasing sources of oil and gas. In addition, if the Obama administration would allow environmentally safe exploration and development to go forward on land (Rocky Mountain shale, Alaska) and in all coastal waters the U.S. could easily become independent of potentially unreliable energy sources. That the Obama administration won't even allow updating surveys of available oil and oil equivalents to take place adds to the ideological blindness that is hurting the national security of the United States.
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
I agree that "energy independence" should be about making sensible use of our own resources and being prepared for the effects of war on our supply. Michael has laid out what needs to be done.
~Paules:
Our problem is that "green" is a religion, and we're supposed to have a separation between church and state in this country. True believers can participate voluntarily all they like. Buy a Volt if it makes you feel righteous ("there's a sucker born every minute"). But the state shouldn't have the power to enforce "green" on the rest of us.
Right. Unfortunately, the green movement is advertised as strongly as the gay movement, so it's had similar success in converting folks on the Right.
Sep '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
“conservative rationale for energy independence” I am amused! The government ensures that the energy resources of the US are not utilized as they would be if market forces were allowed to work. If the US utilized its nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal resources in anything approaching a rational way the US would be a net exporter of energy. This does not even begin to take into account the apparently limitless supply of hot air available in DC. As Mitch Daniels says it is time to “untie Gulliver.”
May '10
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
The closest things I've heard to a coherent argument is that we'll conserve our own natural supply so we'll still have it when the rest of the world runs low. Basically, use up theirs first.
If we develop our domestic reserves to the best of our ability, there's a chance we could exhaust them at some point and be truly dependent on imported oil, even for military operations. That doesn't sound like a good scenario.
I'm not sure how realistic that is.
Re: Energy Independence: Tilting at Green Windmills?
I'm going to disagree on market terms. I have no desire to get America off of oil. I desire to see America return to being a seller of it, not a buyer.
In any transaction of buyer and seller, at the end of the day, the seller ends up with the money.
In the last thirty years, while America has watched her crude oil consumption rocket upward, she has suffered her production dropping so low that today the daily gap between import/expert exceeds each day's production.
We are throwing money at the the rest of the world, when we should be having them throw theirs at us.
Stay with oil - let's just start selling it.
And I do disagree with you on wind energy, Troy. The problem is that each windmill needs about 5 acres of elbow room. The answer is to put them out in the water. I care not for the few simple birds it will kill (if evolution hasn't weeded out these dodos who fly into the blades, we can do it) nor do I care if some surfer doesn't like the look of them while meditating on the jetty.