Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Enthalpy and Entropy
Today's Post runs a story critiquing the Administration's energy bill, which will likely clear Congress next month after conference resolution (Here are the House and Senate versions, courtesy of THOMAS). The main thrust of their argument? The bill would not accomplish its stated goal: reducing American dependency on foreign oil. It even includes a bombshell admission from Ben Lieberman at the Heritage Foundation:
See, most analysts will, as I just did, jump on the end of Lieberman's quote...but it's the first sentence they should hang on...."as long as we're using oil."
There has been a slow but steady change within the Republican Party to embrace the idea of renewable energy. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the Senate's expert in security issues, joined with a former CIA director to claim that renewable energy development is an issue of national security. And President Bush went to a Virginia biomass facility to offer his personal endorsement of the development of agroenergy.
No, it's not because the GOP is getting more eco-friendly...I think we can safely say that's not the case...but rather, they recognize the development of a new market. Oil and gas are on their way down in the US, and for good reason. They are expensive, they are pollutants, and they are imported. These three things are generally not a great combination for market retention. In supporting the development of renewable energy, the GOP is simply seeing where the market is going, and placing their investments appropriately.
Which returns me to the energy bill. The analysts quoted by the Post are quite right: the oil production provisions in the energy bill will not reverse the trend of foreign petroleum dependence. But, more importantly, the measures to encourage alternative fuels WILL have an impact on oil imports. On top of that, the quoted analyses don't take into account the continued development of biofuel and hydrogen technology in the private sector...which, oh by the way, will be supported with billions more in federal grants. And both the GOP and Democrats were pushing for the spending this time around.
Time will tell if the energy bill will have its desired effects. But observers would be wise to note that there is a change in energy in Washington...not only of the kind produced, but of the kind exerted.
"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that. There's a few measures to increase domestic production...and that would not do much."Well, gee, thanks for the news flash, skippy. It's no secret that expanding domestic production, waning naturally for 30 years, is only a stopgap measure for our energy problems...though many with backgrounds in business would argue that stopgap measures are the best way to ensure the viability of your new technologies. But we'll hold onto that for a minute.
See, most analysts will, as I just did, jump on the end of Lieberman's quote...but it's the first sentence they should hang on...."as long as we're using oil."
There has been a slow but steady change within the Republican Party to embrace the idea of renewable energy. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the Senate's expert in security issues, joined with a former CIA director to claim that renewable energy development is an issue of national security. And President Bush went to a Virginia biomass facility to offer his personal endorsement of the development of agroenergy.
No, it's not because the GOP is getting more eco-friendly...I think we can safely say that's not the case...but rather, they recognize the development of a new market. Oil and gas are on their way down in the US, and for good reason. They are expensive, they are pollutants, and they are imported. These three things are generally not a great combination for market retention. In supporting the development of renewable energy, the GOP is simply seeing where the market is going, and placing their investments appropriately.
Which returns me to the energy bill. The analysts quoted by the Post are quite right: the oil production provisions in the energy bill will not reverse the trend of foreign petroleum dependence. But, more importantly, the measures to encourage alternative fuels WILL have an impact on oil imports. On top of that, the quoted analyses don't take into account the continued development of biofuel and hydrogen technology in the private sector...which, oh by the way, will be supported with billions more in federal grants. And both the GOP and Democrats were pushing for the spending this time around.
Time will tell if the energy bill will have its desired effects. But observers would be wise to note that there is a change in energy in Washington...not only of the kind produced, but of the kind exerted.
Comments:
<< Home
It's nice to see the Republican Party - the self-proclaimed "party of big ideas" - finally begin to maybe start to see the point that Dems like Al Gore were making 15 YEARS AGO!!!!
That said, I'm pretty skeptical on agroenergy. A recent study indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this energy resource on a large scale." Is that conclusive proof that agroenergy ain't worth it? I've got no idea. But just warning you not to pin your hopes on it.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical on agroenergy. A recent study indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this energy resource on a large scale." Is that conclusive proof that agroenergy ain't worth it? I've got no idea. But just warning you not to pin your hopes on it.
Further criticism of the energy bill, courtesy of The Progress Report:
1) the final version "rejected a Senate provision that required reduction of oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2015." Under the bill "our need for imported oil will continue to grow for as long as models are able to project."
2) The bill gives the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries $8.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies.
3) The final legislation dropped a provision that would have required utilities "to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020." On this issue, we are officially less progressive than China.
4) The bill creates a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act allowing "oil and natural gas drilling companies to inject fluids laced with toxic chemicals and contaminants into oil and gas wells that penetrate underground aquifers, risking contamination of drinking water sources." The bill also "creates a loophole in the Clean Water Act" for oil and gas companies which allows the industry to ignore regulations designed to limit "erosion and runoff into rivers and streams" at construction sites.
5) The final version "contains no substantive provisions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming," such as a carbon tax or cap. The conferees even stripped out "a Senate provision acknowledging the threat of climate change."
1) the final version "rejected a Senate provision that required reduction of oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2015." Under the bill "our need for imported oil will continue to grow for as long as models are able to project."
2) The bill gives the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries $8.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in loan guarantees and other subsidies.
3) The final legislation dropped a provision that would have required utilities "to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020." On this issue, we are officially less progressive than China.
4) The bill creates a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act allowing "oil and natural gas drilling companies to inject fluids laced with toxic chemicals and contaminants into oil and gas wells that penetrate underground aquifers, risking contamination of drinking water sources." The bill also "creates a loophole in the Clean Water Act" for oil and gas companies which allows the industry to ignore regulations designed to limit "erosion and runoff into rivers and streams" at construction sites.
5) The final version "contains no substantive provisions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming," such as a carbon tax or cap. The conferees even stripped out "a Senate provision acknowledging the threat of climate change."
I'd like to note that exactly two of Nordy's five criticisms of the bill related to the topic I was discussing.
And in truth, I am somewhat skeptical about ethanol and biomass myself. However, I'm not an expert in the area, and the Little Lady is, and she swears that the technology has improved across the board...so yes, I'm taking my girlfriend's word for it. She listens to me on education, after all. :)
Post a Comment
And in truth, I am somewhat skeptical about ethanol and biomass myself. However, I'm not an expert in the area, and the Little Lady is, and she swears that the technology has improved across the board...so yes, I'm taking my girlfriend's word for it. She listens to me on education, after all. :)
<< Home
