Re: If I Was US Minister of Energy

Quiet, "Jon Enslin" <jenslin@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.


Charles Beauchamp wrote:
here are the issues...

1. Recognizing that speculation on oil has run up the price...and
also recognizing that 2/3 of the oil that is bid on is oil that
originates and ends up in foreign countries thus being beyond any
reach of American governmental regulation...meaning that all the
ideas of how to break down the speculation process...are doomed. So
I would pay no mind to that.

2. We consume more then 1/5 of the oil on the planet..but with India
and China rising as economic forces and with the expense on
infrastructure in those countries..the worldwide demand will rise
rapidly over the next 20 years likely causing shortages.

I agree with both of these observations.



What I would do....

1. We do have some untapped oil field capacity in this country but
not nearly as much as some of my fellow Conservafascist friends seem
to suggest. There is likely not very much deposit space left in the
Continental US. The Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of Alaska
probably is where what remains is at. I would ramp up drilling in
those areas.

2. ANWR would be drilled. The capacity limit there is probably in
the range of 800,000 barrels per day. I would pay no mind to
environazis that do not deal with reality.

3 I would increase refinery capacity until daily consumption
averages no more then 80% of refinery capacity. This would also mean
Federal deregulation from Transportation to Energy to dive down
overhead costs that are typically passed down to the consumers at the
gas pump anyhow. This would also ease pressures on state
governments. It would also allow for increased production when
neccessary...something sorely lacking today.

I agree with all three. (I bet you're surprised...) As much as I at
one time opposed ANWR drilling, it is obvious that we need to be less
dependent on foreign oil. This is a great solution for the medium
run.



4. Eliminate the Federal Gasoline tax almost entirely. It was
formed in order to build Federal highways accross the country. Those
are complete. Remove the tax at the Federal level almost entirely.
Keep a small amount (perhaps a nickle) for national highway
maintenance or pass those costs directly to the states and allow the
states to keep a small portion of the tax. This would lower the
overhead on gasoline by 13-17 cents per gallon immediately. At
penalty of huge governmental taxation Big Oil would not be allowed to
run up profits by pocketing the difference.

I disagree here. The federal gas tax pays for the construction and
reconstruction of roads. About 80% of any highway construction
project for a highway on the "National Highway System," which is all
interstates and many US and state highways, is provided by this tax.
If you eliminate it, either the states will simply have to reinstitute
it at their level or the road infrastructure falls apart. That would
be most costly to our economy than the help that the lower gas tax
would give.



5. Form up a bidding process to allow increase of nuclear power.
The goal would be to replace as many oil fired electric power plants
with nuclear power as possible. These plants would be
semi-autonomous private entities with heavy duty governmental
oversite under the theory that they serve the national interest...but
you don't need a civil servant running the reactor.

Fine.


6. Short term offer up the sale of military nuclear reactors to
local municipalities as mini power stations. As we decomission
aircraft carriers and attack submarines those ships have significant
power generating capability. In the aftermath of the Loma Prieta
earthquake the US Navy did use a Nimitz class CVN to generate power
for the city of San Francisco for a short period. The ability
exists. The reactors exist. Right now what we do is remove the fuel
and components and bury them in Eastern Washington. This is a waste
of significant resource. A terrific job for the US Navy Reserve.

No opinion here.


7. We have vast natural gas deposits within this nation. If I was
the Supreme Bossman I would make it a requirement that all new
automobiles sold in the United States have dual tank capability not
later then 2015. The technology is already existent. It works. Now
normalize it.

The US Department of Energy should be throwing huge amounts of money
at this or any other alternative energy solution that is economical.
We have the will, the money, the intelligence and the production
capacity to combat this problem and find a solution. I don't care if
it natural gas or animal fur - let's solve this problem. It will take
a generation, but it can be done.

It is much better to spend our money this way than to cut $100 checks
that will be spent on everything but gas.

Jon



One of the things that has PISSED ME OFF ROYALLY in the last week or so
was an editorial in the Washington Post:

http://tinyurl.com/qa6rn

Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case

By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first
voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of
U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my
views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to
update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy
source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the
United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10
percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas
responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale,
cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while
continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can
do so safely.

* * *

which made me think "Oh, NOW YOU GET IT." Thirty years after helping to
bring the US nuclear energy industry to its knees by hyping up an "IT
COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE" incident at TMI, Mr. Green decides "Hey, I
was wrong -- we should have developed our nuclear power industry after
all."

We are all wrong at times; but the overreaction to TMI was so patently
wrong, so utterly unnecessary, and so unrelated to the reality on the
ground, that it was obvious to any nonpartisan mind that the incident was
being used to further an agenda that had no interest in the truth or in
future energy needs, as long as the nukes were kept away.

Every one of the facts he quotes in the article was true 30 years ago,
but ignored in the media-lashed frenzy to do away with nuclear power. As
Sting sang so incorrectly in "We Work The Black Seam":

"Deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen"

Well, no, Mr. Sting, you breathe C14 every day, and you seem to still be
going strong.

At least if a founder of Greenpeas can see the error of his ways, maybe
now we can get back to the business of figuring out how to make nuclear
power work even better for us. Even with thirty years' lost time to make
up, it's certainly worth doing.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

We Must Protect this Couch!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Why We Need The Solar-Hydrogen Economy Now
    ... chemical engineer and nuclear engineer. ... Today's energy systems did not arise ... Fuel combustion from automobiles and power plants is the primary source ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Peak Oil
    ... >>> primarily of vaule as the source of our mobile energy needs. ... >> about 2-3% is currently generated by oil. ... >> produced mostly by coal fired plants, LNG fired plants, and ... >> nuclear plants now: oil has been pretty much phased out, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: .. What if Tom Hanks filmed the...Future...of NASA instead of its past?
    ... Hippies and tree huggers are not the problem facing nuclear. ... reactors that produce energy at less cost than coal fired plants. ... put the oil companies in charge of energy policy - since they ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Peak Oil
    ... >> majority of our economy's energy use. ... > in the same way that oil is, ... > to use nuclear energy, and that one should direct some focus ...
    (talk.origins)