Energy independence is vital

For the United States not to urgently adopt a sound energy-independence policy would be tantamount to a national travesty. The increasing dependence on oil does not simply undermine America's economic health, it also could seriously threaten national security.

President Bush could leave no greater legacy than committing the United States to such a policy. Failing to do so, his administration will be remembered for mortgaging America's future to the whims and greed of the oil-producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, with ever-growing U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

According to several energy experts, including Guy Caruso, the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the recent hike in oil prices reflects not only the substantial increase in demand, particularly from the United States and China, but also concern over disruption in supplies resulting from political upheaval and terrorist attacks. Regardless of how well oil installations, tankers, pipelines, and refineries are protected, the risk here or abroad of a terrorist attack, with the potential of causing international havoc, remains extremely high. The various terrorist groups, especially al-Qaida, are keenly aware of U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil and will exploit the vulnerability associated with it. There is absolutely no way this administration can register real progress on the war against terrorism while America's appetite for Middle Eastern oil grows. In reality, continued dependency will invite terrorist attacks, which may be only a matter of time.

That the rising income level in the United States may offset for now the hike in oil prices for many consumers does not mitigate the problem of the nation's growing dependency on imported oil. This reality, coupled with the ever-growing consumption, is unlikely to lower the price of oil anytime soon. (U.S. oil consumption grows by nearly 2 percent annually; in 2004, it increased by 2.7 million barrels a day.) In fact, some energy experts speculate that prices for a barrel of oil may sooner than later reach $100! The increasing importation of oil (currently, the United States imports 60 percent of the oil it consumes) has widened the trade gap by tens of billions of dollars a year, and the increase due to oil importation is rising.

In addition to this escalation in costs, the United States spends billions more on many military installations in the Middle East for the express purpose of protecting the flow of oil. However we slice it, America is falling deeper into an economic black hole, with the national debt hitting a record high. And there is no exit from this hole unless the addiction to fossil energy dependence is contained.

Reliance on such Arab oil-producing countries as Saudi Arabia also compels Washington to protect regimes in the region so that political stability is maintained however corrupt, rigid, and undemocratic these regimes may be. As long as the United States continues to be perceived as the protector of a regime like that in Saudi Arabia, which walks on the backs of its people, and as long as prospects for real reform remain elusive, the Arab public will continue to hate America. This will make the United States the target of choice for al-Qaida, which, for example, enjoys the support of more than 50 percent of Saudis, and whose main agenda there is to destabilize that country. Moreover, as the United States remains beholden to Arab oil-producing states, this inevitably compromises America's overall strategic interests and limits its policy choices in the region, thereby severely impeding the chances of ever winning the war on terrorism.

Very few people doubt that either the first Gulf war in 1991, or the war in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, would have occurred had it not been for America's continued dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. The United States has repeatedly placed its military in harm's way and spent hundreds of billions to protect its oil interests in that region. The tragedy is that American soldiers have died in Iraq mostly for oil and not, as the administration would like people to believe, for the freedom of ordinary Iraqis. Billions of people in Africa and Asia are subjected to a life of perpetual misery, and the United States hardly lifts a finger to free them from their burdens.

American dependence on oil makes it impossible to change the perception of the Arab and Muslim masses about America and its goals in the region. U.S. efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East to promote democracy and freedom are seen as nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up for an agenda of exploitation of Arab oil to gain wealth for the sole benefit of Americans. There is not much that the U.S. government can say or do to change this perception as long dependence on Arab oil continues to set the agenda for the administration's actions and policies in the Middle East, especially with the war in Iraq and its aftermath enforcing rather than dispelling such beliefs.

The Bush administration must finally realize that increasing the supply of fossil fuel is not the answer to the energy problem. The national psychological disposition of relying on fossil fuel must change. The United States needs to shift to resources that are domestically available and inexhaustible. This shift, however, will not happen in one decade or even two on its own. The nation needs a bold new energy initiative that adequately responds to these dangerous times, and America must commit itself to seeing the process through, regardless of the difficulties and the financial resources required.

Although we have witnessed a substantial increase in the use of alternative energy in recent years, it still accounts for only 6.4 percent of the U.S. domestic energy consumption. Americans can harness clean and inexhaustible energy sources such as wind power, solar power, bio-fuels like wood and crop wastes, use of geothermal and hydroelectric energy, and development of new natural gas plants. Ethanol, for example, can be produced in abundance. Another powerful energy source is, of course, hydrogen, which is found in water.

A new "energy independent" plan may require upward of $200 billion and over 10 to 15 years, a small amount considering the importance of energy sources and the far-reaching implications for America's global standing and economic well-being. Such funding will be primarily allocated for investment in new plants, commercialization of existing technologies, and development of new ones. In addition, the money will go toward tax incentives, subsidies, and conservation which help consumers and stabilize prices. An energy-independent plan could also create more than 2 million jobs in the next few years, save consumers billions of dollars, and cut pollution dramatically.

The hallmark of any new energy plan must be that it is renewable, domestically produced, sustainable, conserves America's natural resources, and protects the environment.

Time is not on America's side. Mr. Bush, who demonstrated boldness in waging two wars, against terrorism and the promulgation of freedom, must muster the political will to wage a war for energy independence to free America from the shackles of foreign oil. The people will be behind him if the plan is sound, above party politics, and domestically produced. Short of adopting such a strategy, the administration will be betraying the next generation of Americans and robbing them of their right to freely determine their own future. Shortchanging them would be nothing less than a national travesty.

- by Alon Ben-Meir
www.washingtontimes.com

Alon Ben-Meir is the Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute, New York. He is also a professor of International Relations at New York University.

Freedom:



Is it worth paying a few more cents at the pump to have a safe domestic source of energy? Would paying a higher price for fuel put us into an economic tailspin?

Europe pays a lot more and they seem to be doing OK.




If the energy is produced here, the money stays here and spent here. Tax revenues to Uncle Sam may increase. Maybe, the rest of us would get a valid tax cut as a result,...........after the national debt is paid off.



Rising income level? I beg to differ. I've seen figures that show in constant dollars how the average wage has been falling in relation to inflation. With falling wages relative to a constant dollar, fixed to a given year, energy will do nothing but increase in price. Even if the income level were rising, the recent energy spike has certainly offset what little income gains he may have perceived there to be.




Is it possible that we could take some of those military bucks and spend it on facilities to produce domestic energy? Why not have the military have these faciliites built? You may remember that the great interstate infrastructure that we have in this country was partially justified for military purposes. Is it any less important to have a reliable domestic supply of energy for the military to use? It is a matter of national security.



Who will own this new infrastructure? Will it be built, owned and operated by the public for public interests? Will it be built, owned and operated for the interests in maximizing profits? I don't really want to pay big tax dollars to pay for the building of a facility to make some company rich. That's not in my best interest.

I think the US should be building and owning these as a government utility like TVA or BPA. These new facilities can be self sustaining and provide a reasonably priced necessary product to the public. Some may claim that the new facilities are providing unfair competition with private enterprise. These same folks have complained about the US post office the same way. I'm glad the Post Office is in business because there is no way a private company would deliver a letter as cheaply.

New government facilities such as this will constitute a Sea Change in thinking. After being barraged with the mantra for years of the greatness of the free enterprise, it will be hard to break through the years of brainwashing. Some things, however, are better done by government. This massive project would serve the public good and may be one such endeavor.

The spinoffs to the research and construction suggested in this articel would be tremendous. The space program has often been touted as having value merely for its spinoffs. I believe the spinoffs for a massive research and development energy program would far exceed that produced by the space program.



He's a lot nicer to the man than I am, but he's right. We've got to get started on this thing. The lead time to building even a part of the suggested infrastructure is about 10 years. If we don't do something, the oil wars may escalate and the country may suffer economic woes.

This was another good article. Are you sure you don't want to write a book on this subject?

Eino -

That was a good review. The solution to our energy problems are so obvious, the way you put it. Why can't our "leaders" in Washington see it?

The Democrats are not any better than the Republicans when it comes to energy. Here is an example: I recently read that the "jobs bill" was written so that biodiesel tax credits would only be given for fuels made from pure soybeans.

Changing World Technologies, Inc. has perfected its process for making biofuels from garbage, but found that investors were not entilted to the biofuels tax credit because the process used turkey guts, etc. rather than soy beans...

I always thought the real problem in Washington was greed, but after the Tom Delay, Jeb and Dubya show in Florida, where they got the U.S. Congress to hold a special session just to "save" Terri Schiavo from being murdered by the evil Judiciary...

It is more than greed, those fools are crazy!


No, but I do want to recommend a book.

You might remember last year on the JohnKerry forum, seeing several posts about a book by Dr. Suppes, and that his book would soon be published. (It was published late October 2004.)

Here is what the pre-publication JohnKerry.com posts said:
Alternative Fuel Technology Being Blocked By National Policy, MU Researcher Finds

Crude oil imported to the United States costs more than $100 billion per year. As these reserves become depleted, synthetic alternatives may provide the best opportunities to displace these imports with indigenous products, including ethanol from corn, bio-diesel from vegetable oils, and oil from coal. However, it has been difficult to bring this new alternative fuel technology to the United States. A new study by a University of Missouri-Columbia researcher found that by changing existing roadblocks, such as the U.S. tax structure, it would be possible for the United States to reduce the need for imported crude oil.

“In modern society, a nation must be able to commercialize new technology to maintain high worker productivity and an industrial base that is critical for national security,” said Galen Suppes, MU associate professor of chemical engineering. “When national policies inhibit this commercialization, the future of a country is inevitably compromised.”

In the study, Suppes and MU professor emeritus Truman Storvick examined a synthetic fuel sales price and four potential non-technical barriers: the number of years of petroleum crude oil reserves held by a corporation considering an investment into an alternative fuel facility, the intangible costs associated with investing into a new technology, the U.S. tax structure, and the return on investment. Suppes used an analysis that is similar to analyses used to make investment decisions in the chemical industry.

Suppes found that without the non-technical barriers, a barrel of synthetic fuel would cost $13, including technology costs. However, when the other barriers were added, the price dramatically rose. The return on investment and the existing U.S. tax structure would add $14 each, intangible costs related to foreign competition would cost $38 more, and conflicts of interest in the crude oil industry that might be relied upon to commercialize the technology would add more than $100 per barrel.

Suppes believes changes need to be made. For example, according to Suppes, there are essentially zero taxes made on imported crude oil. By contrast, a barrel of domestic synthetic crude oil would have corporate taxes, personal income taxes, FICA taxes, state income taxes, local sales taxes and other misc. taxes that are applied to income, dividends, and property before workers and investors realize their earnings. Stated in a different way, if a refinery pays $1 for a gallon of synthetic oil produced in the United States, about 50 cents of the purchase price goes to the U.S. state and local governments.

“These major non-technical barriers need to be removed for technology to continue to provide national prosperity in a global community,” Suppes said. “The industrial environment in the United States would be more conducive for the commercialization of new technologies that bring with them quality jobs, increased national research and development activities, and needed tax revenues.”

Suppes’ study was published recently by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers in the conference proceedings of the Spring 2004 meeting and will be in the book Energy Disclosed: Abundant Resources and Unused Technology, scheduled for publication at the end of August.


Energy Disclosed: Abundant Resources and Unused Technology
— A book on energy technology and options available to make our country stronger and the world a better place
By Galen J. Suppes, Ph.D., P.E.
Truman S. Storvick, Ph.D., P.E.


The book reads like a college lecture on energy, but without the math or engineering vocabulary. It includes a great review of the history of the discovery and development of our modern energy technology, and recognizes the crucial role of government investment and R&D.

The publisher used a low-end printer, so the print quality is disappointing, but the information in the book is very good. An engineer might not find anything new, but the book is a good tutorial on the subject for non-engineers. What I like best about it is the fact that the authors presented much of the info to their students first, and then used the feedback from the college kids to help improve the presentation.

If only our politicians and their staff would read this book...

Fossilized Policy
MIT Technology Review
May 2005

Alternative energy technologies are increasingly effective—in terms of both technological soundness and economic com­petitiveness—and may soon mitigate some of the myriad geo­political, health, and environmental problems rooted in our dependence on fossil fuels. Modern nuclear power plant designs reflect lessons learned from 50 years of reactor operation and could benefit from materials and control systems unavailable in the 1960s and 1970s. Wind turbines and, to a lesser extent, photovoltaics—solar cells that convert sunlight directly into elec­tricity—are on the verge of competing more broadly against conventional sources of energy. Other technologies, like fuel cells, require more research but hold great promise.

All of the above, however, suffer from official neglect in the United States, which lacks a consistent national policy aimed at bringing alternative energy technologies into common use. The data, as shown in this month’s “Data Mine” (p. 30), tell part of the story. For example, President Bush proposes to spend just $84 million in solar-power research through the Department of Energy next year, while the figure for wind power stands at $44 million—less than one-sixth what he proposes to spend on coal-related R&D. Beyond this anemic R&D commitment to solar, the United States lacks a consistent, long-term plan to give renewables a more secure footing through initiatives like federal financing, tax credits, grid-connection mandates, and streamlined construction rules. This is too bad, because some of these technologies are ready for commercialization. Wind turbines, in particular, are efficient and reliable enough to compete against fossil fuels in some areas. The newest and biggest turbine prototypes—which we describe in Wind Power Upgrade? (p. 21)—promise even better economics. Wind technology is ready to expand and with some federal help could do so quickly.

As for nuclear power, in the United States, innovative tech­nologies languish, while overseas, plans to build new commercial plants are gathering momentum. As Stewart Brand points out in Environmental Heresies (p. 60), while one utility in the Carolinas talks about perhaps building an unspecified type of new nuclear plant someday in the future, companies in South Africa and China recently signed an agreement to collaborate on building two versions of the innovative “pebble bed” reactor. Brand notes that nuclear power plants don’t produce any greenhouse gases and are viewed by some experts as the best tech­nology for producing the hydrogen we’d need to realize a “hydrogen economy.” But when we talk about nuclear power in the United States, it’s mainly to continue the endless arguments about where to put radioactive waste.

So where’s the government commitment to alternative technologies? It’s true that in March, legislators passed a bill that promotes the adoption of renewable electricity technologies. It includes a national fund to help pay for initial development, favorable lending and tax rates, and a requirement that electrical-grid operators adapt to renewable sources. Trouble is, the bill passed in China’s National People’s Congress. On Capitol Hill, an energy bill has been stalled for years, bogged down by controversial provisions, like one that would free oil companies of liability for health problems caused by a gasoline additive that has in some cases contaminated local drinking water.

With Washington offering no solutions, states have begun forming a patchwork of policies. Some states have enacted standards that require a percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources. And an association of western governors has called for more wind farms, among other clean energy sources. While these are encouraging developments, they are not a comprehensive strategy.

Congress and President Bush should provide national leadership.

www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/readme_policy.asp?

The tip of the iceberg.....science in America.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...421yucca21.html
Nevadans: Nuke dump skepticism on the rise


Erica Werner
Associated Press
Apr. 21, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Meeting for the first time since a controversy broke out over document falsification at Yucca Mountain, the five members of Nevada's congressional delegation said Wednesday that they're detecting increasing skepticism about the project on Capitol Hill.

"There isn't anything that ever has in the past compared to this even remotely," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told home-state reporters in his Capitol office. "This is the most substantive evidence we've had that the program is bad and not based on science. There's not even anything close."

Reid, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Reps. Jon Porter, Jim Gibbons and Shelley Berkley said their conversations with colleagues about the proposed national nuclear waste dump have changed markedly since the Energy Department last month disclosed the controversial e-mails.

Written by U.S. Geological Survey workers studying how water moves through the proposed dump site 90 miles from Las Vegas, the e-mails show the workers discussing making up data and keeping two sets of figures, one for themselves and one for quality assurance officers.

"Everybody's hearing the same feedback from our colleagues that we're sensing a sea change here," Ensign said. "When we talked about sound science before, most of our colleagues just thought we were trying to protect Nevada's, our constituents', interests, but they didn't really believe it."

The Nevada lawmakers said they will meet with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman next month to discuss the issue.

A spokeswoman said the Energy Department remains committed to Yucca Mountain.

"The department is taking this matter very seriously. We've undertaken a thorough review of the allegations, the underlying science and the processes involved," spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton said. "But the fact remains that America needs a permanent geologic repository and we will continue to prepare the license application for Yucca Mountain to meet that critical goal."

Porter, R-Nev., said his subcommittee, which oversees the federal workforce, has held one hearing but the Interior Department declined to make the three workers who were the principle authors of the e-mails available to testify.

"I suspect that the three individuals in question are just the tip of the iceberg," he said.

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

US Court Rules Energy Task Force Records Will Remain Secret Bloomberg

Gas Pipeline Explodes in Northeast Texas

Updated 9:46 AM ET May 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8a2ave00&src=ap

HALLSVILLE, Texas (AP) - A natural gas pipeline exploded early Friday in northeastern Texas, forcing the evacuation of homes up to a mile away and sending a fireball 500 feet into the air, authorities said.

No serious injuries were reported. One worker was treated at a hospital for minor injuries and released, officials said.

The pipeline rupture forced about 43 residents to evacuate, said a trooper with the Texas Department of Public Safety.

"At this point, they are working to establish what may have caused the rupture in the first place," Trooper Jeanne Steeley told Shreveport, La., television station KSLA.

The blast happened about 2 a.m. on a pipeline that serves a power plant co-owned by Entergy Corp., Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative and East Texas Electric Cooperative.

The pipeline is owned by Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. A Kinder Morgan spokesman said Friday that he did not immediately have details on the blast.

Smoke and flames were visible as far as 10 miles away.

"It was a loud rumble," Madeline Walton told KSLA. "It just shook the whole place and I looked outside and saw bright orange and yellow flames shooting into the sky."


[do you thnk this could be terrorism?]

do you thnk this could be terrorism?

Another, perhaps more cynical view, is the fact that the energy companies will make a lot of money if the explosion creates a temporary gas shortage...

Bush Urges Development of Alternate Fuels

Updated 5:06 PM ET May 16, 2005

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8a4gmto1&src=ap

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WEST POINT, Va. (AP) - With gasoline prices soaring, President Bush urged Congress on Monday to encourage development of alternate fuels like biodiesel and ethanol to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil.

"Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream, and that tax is growing every year," Bush said at the Virginia BioDiesel Refinery about 140 miles south of Washington.

[Look - he even ties tax reform with energy!!!]

Bush flew here, about 30 miles from Richmond, to visit a production facility for biodiesel, an alternative fuel made from soybeans that is cleaner-burning and American-made, but carries a higher price tag that regular diesel fuel. It is often blended with conventional transportation fuels as an extender......

[continued]

..."Americans are concerned about high prices at the pump and they're really concerned as they start making their travel plans, and I understand that," the president said. "I wish I could just wave a magic wand and lower the price at the pump. I'd do that. But that's not how it works."

[he gets out there before Memorial day to show "he cares"]

He said the high prices confronting consumers have been decades in the making.

Bush urged Congress to enact energy legislation that he says addresses both supply and conservation issues in a bid to make the United States less dependent on foreign nations, particularly those in the volatile Middle East, for its energy needs.

Bush has attempted to set an August deadline for Congress to get a bill to his desk. The House has approved a plan with many elements that Bush wants, though he opposes the billions in tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies that it contains. The Senate has yet to act on alternative legislation.

Bush's plan would open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling as part of its attempt to address supply problems.

His focus Monday, though, was on the part of the plan that boosts support for conservation and fossil fuel alternatives _ such as hydrogen, biodiesel and clean coal technology. Separately, Bush has also offered proposals to speed construction of nuclear power plants and oil refineries.

Monday's appearance was one of three this week, in Washington and around the country, that are designed to turn Bush's focus back to his chief domestic priorities after a foreign trip. Later in the week, Bush was pushing his free-trade agenda, particularly a pact with Central American and Caribbean nations, and his proposals to remake and strengthen Social Security.

I read once that the secret of successful marketing is to make whatever you are selling look like or sound like whatever the people are buying...

Bush speech writers seem to be following this advise.