Energy Policy: Compare and Contrast Part 2
In a previous column, several readers took me to task over my assertion that Senator McCain seemed to have put forward a more sensible, comprehensive set of proposals for both U.S. energy policy and the economy. (These days the two are linked to the point of being inseparable.) Today I would like to take a more comprehensive look at the stated positions, voting records and campaign trail statements of the two primary candidates on some of the key energy initiatives. Both are making admirable calls for advancements in alternative and renewable energy sources, which will be key to our long term strategy as we move away from a fossil fuel based system, but the specifics differ, as do their proposed short and medium term solutions.
First let’s examine their position on biofuels, specifically ethanol. Obama has been a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of corn and grain based ethanol programs. However, more and more research has indicated that this approach presents a number of problems. The large amounts of produce going into this project may be contributing to food shortage concerns, and the process itself is far from sound in terms of environmental issues. (We use up to 2,000 gallons of fresh water to produce a single gallon of ethanol and the waste products are considerable.) Ethanol is also a less efficient fuel than oil, containing only 75% of the energy by volume to an equivalent amount of oil based fuel. McCain is proposing a roll-back of the subsidies for this program, shifting the funding into alternative green sources to produce this type of fuel.
On the issue of nuclear power, while there is still significant, residual opposition to it in this country, the fact is that nuclear fission technology is safer than it was in the past and new technological advancements have greatly reduced the amount of waste byproducts. Storage is still a significant, valid question, but we already have plans in place which seem viable. Meanwhile, other countries in Europe are generating a majority of their electricity using this technology (which we developed) while the United States has not begun construction on a new nuclear plant in more than thirty years. Barack Obama’s position on this has been fuzzy at times, but he has come out against nuclear power on several occasions. McCain is not only calling for the construction of at least 45 new plants by 2030, (100 plants eventually) but working on plans to reduce the political and regulatory gridlock preventing such development.
On wind, solar and geothermal, contrary to charges made by Obama’s campaign, McCain has not argued against these forms of energy, and has called for their continued research, development and deployment. But McCain also realizes that we do not yet have the technology and infrastructure in these areas to meet expected needs. Both candidates want to continue development of these technologies, but Obama’s plan to mandate 25% of the country’s electricity coming from these sources by 2030 is simply not realistic in the opinion of most experts. (See the previous link on that.)
To fill that gap until such technology can fully meet our needs, we will need other domestic energy sources. While you are free to oppose the idea, we may still have no choice but to rely on domestic oil and clean coal sources in the medium term. McCain is calling for lifting the bans on domestic drilling and Obama opposes such a move. I am very puzzled by people saying that “we won’t produce any oil for seven years” with new domestic drilling, and using that for a reason not to do it. If it takes seven years and you never start, you will never get any more oil.
How have the candidates voted on energy in the past? One of the key items on the agenda was the 2005 energy bill, developed primarily by Vice President Cheney. At the time it was noted that the bill contained billions of dollars in giveaways for oil companies while doing little or nothing to support the exploration of alternative energy sources or efforts to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. The bill was backed by President Bush, but oddly enough, John McCain voted against the bill and Obama voted for it. (And yet, Obama is running ads accusing John McCain of voting with President Bush to give big tax breaks to oil companies, which is certainly an odd charge in light of this voting record.) Obama also supported the recent farm bill which was packed with subsidies for large agri-business interests (as opposed to small farmers) and propping up the ethanol push again, while McCain opposed it. This voting pattern, in my opinion, not only speaks to McCain’s commitment to fiscal discipline, but makes him arguably the “greener” and more environmentally friendly of the two candidates in terms of energy policy.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, I still find McCain to have the more comprehensive and viable energy proposals, which will be a key consideration for many voters this fall. And this plan also seems to be the most environmentally friendly. Obama is to be given full credit for calling on Americans to drastically reduce energy demand, but he does not seem to do much to increase supply. Of the two plans, I still have to give the tip of the hat to McCain’s Lexington Project.
70 Responses to “Energy Policy: Compare and Contrast Part 2”
neocon, I'm curious. Are you or were you in the oil business or is this just based on reading / conversation / research, etc.?
neocon, I'm curious. Are you or were you in the oil business or is this just based on reading / conversation / research, etc.?
My family has been in oil for decades. We even have patents in the business.
My family has been in oil for decades. We even have patents in the business.
I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?
While additional drilling might play a part, it won't play a significant part in reducing gas or oil prices in the US, whether the effect comes in 5, 10, or 30 years.
Prices are set by the global markets, and US contribution to global oil supplies would not be significant enough to affect global prices by more than a xx cents.
Keep in mind that worldwide demand would also be rising in th interim.
A pertinent question to ask is whether taxpayer investment, and that will be expected, is best devoted to drilling or to alternate energy sources, fuel eficiency and technologies that promote conservation.
There are parallels between the mindset of those like McCain wjo trun to drilling as the inevitable fallback position, and the mindset of those in the US auto industry. They also stuck to old paradigms and, as a result, have been beaten at their own game by other countries, notably Japan. .
Other countries, like in Scandinavia, are even pulling ahead of the US in innovation. If the US isn't careful, we'll lose out even on that front. Time is running out. We either face the music and prepare for the future or we stick to old ways and repeated failures.
I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?
While additional drilling might play a part, it won't play a significant part in reducing gas or oil prices in the US, whether the effect comes in 5, 10, or 30 years.
Prices are set by the global markets, and US contribution to global oil supplies would not be significant enough to affect global prices by more than a xx cents.
Keep in mind that worldwide demand would also be rising in th interim.
A pertinent question to ask is whether taxpayer investment, and that will be expected, is best devoted to drilling or to alternate energy sources, fuel eficiency and technologies that promote conservation.
There are parallels between the mindset of those like McCain wjo trun to drilling as the inevitable fallback position, and the mindset of those in the US auto industry. They also stuck to old paradigms and, as a result, have been beaten at their own game by other countries, notably Japan. .
Other countries, like in Scandinavia, are even pulling ahead of the US in innovation. If the US isn't careful, we'll lose out even on that front. Time is running out. We either face the music and prepare for the future or we stick to old ways and repeated failures.
Man, I go to bed for a while and you people just really go to town. Lots of good information provided in comments, which I've been reading and will reference in the next follow-up on this piece. Thanks!
Man, I go to bed for a while and you people just really go to town. Lots of good information provided in comments, which I've been reading and will reference in the next follow-up on this piece. Thanks!
Neocon, would it be possible for you to provide some documentation for the things you're talking about? I've done quite a bit of reading about this and never came across any mention of essentially anything you've said. I also passed it by a friend of mine in the oil business and he thinks most of what you say is total bunk.
Neocon, would it be possible for you to provide some documentation for the things you're talking about? I've done quite a bit of reading about this and never came across any mention of essentially anything you've said. I also passed it by a friend of mine in the oil business and he thinks most of what you say is total bunk.
I also passed it by a friend of mine in the oil business and he thinks most of what you say is total bunk.
Yep just as I suspected. Barak Obama dot com has sent you over here havent they. I get some guy that I have never seen posting at a site show up everytime I start talking about this with almost identical talking points and how Barak Obama is going to save the world.
I get that all the time. Oil people reject my thoughts. Democrats reject my thoughts. GOP'ers reject my thoughts. All for 3 and vastly different reasons. Dems to stop drilling and save the owl. GOP to protect national security. Oil company people to keep the heat off them and to continue to ensure the financial longevity of their business.
However if your really interested in the truth and not just talking points to keep your own beliefs in your made up fairytale world sound then Im sure there is enough information out there to give you a good start.
Look it up yourself. What I posted is in my head not on wikiapedia dot com. What I posted is 40 years of accumulated knowledge of the business. Not what I read at wikiapedia.com.
If in this day and age to make something the truth you must post a reference to a link on the internet then all I have to do is start a blog write what I know and it becomes the truth.
Is that what the internet is about.
Fine lets start with gull island. If you want to learn.. Start their. Perhaps Carbon Injection techniques as opposed to water injection. Mabey you could sit in on symposiums on oil shale and its possible ramifications and how your going to heat it up and get it out of the ground. Where the water is going to come from.
Maybe you could try sitting in on Conoco/Phillips town hall meetings as they discuss the state of the oil industry. Or Exxon/Mobile or BP Amoco. Sinclair oil is a strong provider of information on the state of refineries 3 of which they operate and the oil business.
Perhaps you could join a small cap investment team whose function is to bring oil to market using leases that are not exorbitantly expensive and try to drill and produce in areas where the big two such as Exxon or Shell are willing to sell you co2 for carbon injection and someone else is willing to sell you crushed limestone so you can drill without using exorbitant amounts of water.
Perhaps when you;ve set in on and done all these things for 40 years you can come back and tell me Its bunk. As for me I've said the last thing Im going to say on this. You as voters can either educate yourselves on this topic or you can continue listening to what talking points you believe and go on your merry way.
Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.
I also passed it by a friend of mine in the oil business and he thinks most of what you say is total bunk.
Yep just as I suspected. Barak Obama dot com has sent you over here havent they. I get some guy that I have never seen posting at a site show up everytime I start talking about this with almost identical talking points and how Barak Obama is going to save the world.
I get that all the time. Oil people reject my thoughts. Democrats reject my thoughts. GOP'ers reject my thoughts. All for 3 and vastly different reasons. Dems to stop drilling and save the owl. GOP to protect national security. Oil company people to keep the heat off them and to continue to ensure the financial longevity of their business.
However if your really interested in the truth and not just talking points to keep your own beliefs in your made up fairytale world sound then Im sure there is enough information out there to give you a good start.
Look it up yourself. What I posted is in my head not on wikiapedia dot com. What I posted is 40 years of accumulated knowledge of the business. Not what I read at wikiapedia.com.
If in this day and age to make something the truth you must post a reference to a link on the internet then all I have to do is start a blog write what I know and it becomes the truth.
Is that what the internet is about.
Fine lets start with gull island. If you want to learn.. Start their. Perhaps Carbon Injection techniques as opposed to water injection. Mabey you could sit in on symposiums on oil shale and its possible ramifications and how your going to heat it up and get it out of the ground. Where the water is going to come from.
Maybe you could try sitting in on Conoco/Phillips town hall meetings as they discuss the state of the oil industry. Or Exxon/Mobile or BP Amoco. Sinclair oil is a strong provider of information on the state of refineries 3 of which they operate and the oil business.
Perhaps you could join a small cap investment team whose function is to bring oil to market using leases that are not exorbitantly expensive and try to drill and produce in areas where the big two such as Exxon or Shell are willing to sell you co2 for carbon injection and someone else is willing to sell you crushed limestone so you can drill without using exorbitant amounts of water.
Perhaps when you;ve set in on and done all these things for 40 years you can come back and tell me Its bunk. As for me I've said the last thing Im going to say on this. You as voters can either educate yourselves on this topic or you can continue listening to what talking points you believe and go on your merry way.
Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.
“Funny how the word 'conservation' is used so rarely.”
It is used and misused constantly, not rarely, and it is misused because in no way is it and in no way can and will it ever be a solution in and of itself. Nor is it right or appropriate to forcibly reduce people's standard of living (with exceptions for those deciding on and enforcing the reducing, in practice), or otherwise engage in elitist folly such as we're hearing about forcing down speed limits on highways.
“Funny how the word 'conservation' is used so rarely.”
It is used and misused constantly, not rarely, and it is misused because in no way is it and in no way can and will it ever be a solution in and of itself. Nor is it right or appropriate to forcibly reduce people's standard of living (with exceptions for those deciding on and enforcing the reducing, in practice), or otherwise engage in elitist folly such as we're hearing about forcing down speed limits on highways.
“I agree with Mr. Diamond of JP Morgan, who said to Charlie Rose that sharply dropping gas prices might abort all R&D efforts in alternate sources. as it it has in the past..”
Twice, there has been a substantial rise in motor vehicle fuel prices, and after waiting, the auto makers have offered smaller vehicles to consumers — which left the auto makers burned after fuel prices went back down and consumers moved back to larger or more powerful vehicles.
It is a very risky thing for the automakers to retool and risk being “burned” again, which is one likely reason why they are late to build and offer smaller vehicles, even if “this time it's different.” (What makes more sense is the offering for sale here in the USA of smaller vehicles that already are offered in Europe; no retooling would be needed.)
* * *
“As far as ethanol goes, most experts suggest its effect on food prices is overstated.”
Then there is the outright silliness of “linking” ethanol here in the USA to “the food crisis” [sic] in the Third World, accompanied by pathological guilt or outrage. [sigh]
Ethanol has other problems, such as inferior energy density as well as the issues with how it is managed and subsidized (in what looks like a corrupt manner).
Too bad we don't have isobutanol from switchgrass already, but oh, well.
* * *
“I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?”
The more important issue is that many good areas aren't available to them.
* * *
“Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.”
Only the diseased fools who say we need this because it will reduce “global warming” [gag] will be happy about it. Or those who want to heap huge new taxes on the cost in addition to it. Or those who want to socially engineer society by levying sumptuary (“sin”) taxes on engine displacement or horsepower or impose a “fee-bate” scheme where extra costs are added to larger vehicles and transferred as subsidies to lower the costs of smaller vehicles, so the circus animals tend over time to jump through the preferred, “proper” hoops.
“I agree with Mr. Diamond of JP Morgan, who said to Charlie Rose that sharply dropping gas prices might abort all R&D efforts in alternate sources. as it it has in the past..”
Twice, there has been a substantial rise in motor vehicle fuel prices, and after waiting, the auto makers have offered smaller vehicles to consumers — which left the auto makers burned after fuel prices went back down and consumers moved back to larger or more powerful vehicles.
It is a very risky thing for the automakers to retool and risk being “burned” again, which is one likely reason why they are late to build and offer smaller vehicles, even if “this time it's different.” (What makes more sense is the offering for sale here in the USA of smaller vehicles that already are offered in Europe; no retooling would be needed.)
* * *
“As far as ethanol goes, most experts suggest its effect on food prices is overstated.”
Then there is the outright silliness of “linking” ethanol here in the USA to “the food crisis” [sic] in the Third World, accompanied by pathological guilt or outrage. [sigh]
Ethanol has other problems, such as inferior energy density as well as the issues with how it is managed and subsidized (in what looks like a corrupt manner).
Too bad we don't have isobutanol from switchgrass already, but oh, well.
* * *
“I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?”
The more important issue is that many good areas aren't available to them.
* * *
“Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.”
Only the diseased fools who say we need this because it will reduce “global warming” [gag] will be happy about it. Or those who want to heap huge new taxes on the cost in addition to it. Or those who want to socially engineer society by levying sumptuary (“sin”) taxes on engine displacement or horsepower or impose a “fee-bate” scheme where extra costs are added to larger vehicles and transferred as subsidies to lower the costs of smaller vehicles, so the circus animals tend over time to jump through the preferred, “proper” hoops.
DLS.
A synopsis of your rant laced comment says that society should follow consumer whims. If consumers developed a taste for poison, then, poison should be marketed at affordable prices. i think not.
While McCain and the oilmen dangle the mirage of cheap oil in front of consumers' eyes, climate change keeps on rolling along. By going after the mirage, we are wasting both time and resources, thus hampering efforts to develop coping mechanisms for the inevitable relatively high oil prices. The increase in demand by developing countries, plus the decreasing ablility of oil supplies to keep up, will guarrrantee relativley high prices, unless you're proposing to go the way of iran, which is going broke because of state sublidies to consumers and, thus, embrace socialism.
The customary taxation epilog never fails. The illusion that people don't need to pay for what they get is a mass psychosis, by now, as evidenced by not only failing to pay for our wars, but also by an unwillingness to pay for cheap gas.
Cheap gas also costs, not only in terms of prospects for the future, but in tax-payer subsidies. A lot of those taxpayers don't own cars and couldn't afford long road trips if they did, so this is wealth distribution of the first order.
it's ridiculous to expect to benefit when it suits but then cry 'wolf' when you have have to contribute to the benefits garnered. The anti-tax people want a free ride and nothing less.
When did a free ride become a right?.
DLS.
A synopsis of your rant laced comment says that society should follow consumer whims. If consumers developed a taste for poison, then, poison should be marketed at affordable prices. i think not.
While McCain and the oilmen dangle the mirage of cheap oil in front of consumers' eyes, climate change keeps on rolling along. By going after the mirage, we are wasting both time and resources, thus hampering efforts to develop coping mechanisms for the inevitable relatively high oil prices. The increase in demand by developing countries, plus the decreasing ablility of oil supplies to keep up, will guarrrantee relativley high prices, unless you're proposing to go the way of iran, which is going broke because of state sublidies to consumers and, thus, embrace socialism.
The customary taxation epilog never fails. The illusion that people don't need to pay for what they get is a mass psychosis, by now, as evidenced by not only failing to pay for our wars, but also by an unwillingness to pay for cheap gas.
Cheap gas also costs, not only in terms of prospects for the future, but in tax-payer subsidies. A lot of those taxpayers don't own cars and couldn't afford long road trips if they did, so this is wealth distribution of the first order.
it's ridiculous to expect to benefit when it suits but then cry 'wolf' when you have have to contribute to the benefits garnered. The anti-tax people want a free ride and nothing less.
When did a free ride become a right?.
I don't buy that we can start drilling off-shore, and then “get it to market” in 9-18 months. That might be true in areas that already have supporting infrastructure, but not in this case. There really is no short-term solution, and people are going to just have to recognize that.
And while I have no figures to support this, my feeling is that $4 / gal (and related costs) could be as low as we can expect in the future.
But I still think we should start drilling off-shore. That oil (and ever-more domestic supplies) should be for US domestic consumption, and it should be part of a wider energy policy. If we don't become self-sustaining (or as nearly so as possible), then the coming global melt-down as people start fighting over diminishing supply is going to suck us right in.
I don't buy that we can start drilling off-shore, and then “get it to market” in 9-18 months. That might be true in areas that already have supporting infrastructure, but not in this case. There really is no short-term solution, and people are going to just have to recognize that.
And while I have no figures to support this, my feeling is that $4 / gal (and related costs) could be as low as we can expect in the future.
But I still think we should start drilling off-shore. That oil (and ever-more domestic supplies) should be for US domestic consumption, and it should be part of a wider energy policy. If we don't become self-sustaining (or as nearly so as possible), then the coming global melt-down as people start fighting over diminishing supply is going to suck us right in.